THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it will:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-1: The proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments (Less than Significant)
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (WDRS) BOARD ORDER NUMBER NO. 5-2019-0021 (NPDES PERMIT NO. CA0085235).
A large portion of the City of Clovis' wastewater is treated at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), located southwest of the City of Fresno. Through a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fresno, the City of Clovis conveys much of its wastewater to the RWRF and is entitled to a maximum capacity of 9.3 mgd. The RWRF is operated by the City of Fresno and currently has a maximum capacity of 80 mgd.
730
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-7 The ST-WRF serves the new growth areas of the City in the Southeast, Northwest, and ultimately the Northeast Urban Centers. With a total average daily flow of 2.8 million gallons per day (3,136 AFY), the plant is designed to accommodate future expansion and will ultimately treat 8.4 million gallons per day (9,400 AFY). The Project site would be served by a new wastewater collection system installed within proposed public utilities easements that would ultimately be conveyed to the STWRF.
The proposed Project would increase the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. According to the City’s 2017 Wastewater Master Plan Update, single family residential uses are estimated to generate 55 gallons per capita per day or 175 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (edu). The Project site includes up to 605 single family residential units. Using this rate, the proposed Project would generate approximately 105,875 gallons per day of wastewater. Occupancy of the proposed Project would be prohibited without sewer allocation. An issuance of sewer allocation from the City’s available capacity would ensure that there would be a final determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Additionally, any planned expansion to the RWTF with a subsequent allocation of capacity to the proposed Project would ensure that there would not be a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is inadequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
The ST-WRF is currently in compliance with the WDR requirements of Order Number No. 5-2019- 0021 (NPDES Permit No. CA0085235). The projected flows of the proposed Project are not expected to exceed the treatment capacity available for treatment. Full buildout of the proposed Project would slightly increase the existing treatment demand at the ST-WRF. As described above, the City must also periodically review and update their Utility Master Plans, including the Wastewater Master Plan, and as growth continues to occur within the City, the City will identify necessary system upgrades and capacity enhancements to meet growth, prior to the approval of new development.
These pre-existing proactive efforts ensure the City would be able to reliably treat the wastewater as the community expands its population up to and through the next plant expansion, including with implementation of the proposed Project.
The City General Plan designates the Development Area as Rural Residential and therefore anticipated potential development. Given that projected wastewater generation volumes associated with the buildout of the Development Area would not exceed the projected wastewater generation volumes described in the Wastewater Master Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Impact 3.14-2: The proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant)
As Clovis continues to develop in the future, there will be an increased need for water and wastewater services, including a reliable source of recycled water. These needs have been 731
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North addressed in the Clovis Wastewater Master Plans and will require that the City continue to implement improvements to some pump stations, and sewer mains when triggered by growth.
The overall collection sewer strategy for the City of Clovis, including the proposed Project, consists of a combination gravity sewer collection system with pump or lift stations located along the collection system to convey wastewater to influent the ST-WRF.
The Project site would be served by a new wastewater collection and conveyance system installed within proposed public utilities easements. The proposed wastewater conveyance facilities would connect to the existing sewer mains as part of the City of Clovis collection and treatment system.
Wastewater treatment would be provided at the ST-WRF, although in the interim it may receive treatment at the existing Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Fresno.
The wastewater collection and conveyance system that will serve the proposed Project will consist of engineered infrastructure consistent with the City’s existing infrastructure requirements. New wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure needed for the proposed Project will require trenching/excavation of earth, and placement of pipe within the trenches at specific locations, elevations, and gradients. The applicant will refine the wastewater collection/conveyance infrastructure design through the development of improvement plans which undergo review by the City of Clovis Engineering Department to ensure consistency with the City of Clovis standards and specifications. This improvement plan process will include full engineering design (i.e., location, depth, slope, etc.) of all conveyance infrastructure as well as a review of new sewer pump stations and new force mains if needed. Ultimately, the sanitary sewer collection system will be an underground collection system installed as per the City of Clovis standards and specifications.
CONCLUSION
The construction of the new wastewater facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the proposed Project, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the wastewater system, and all construction activities within the Development Area of the Project site, are addressed throughout this EIR. There are no other anticipated impacts associated with the infrastructure construction activities beyond what is already discussed throughout this EIR.
The installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The wastewater treatment plant would not require upgrades or improvements in order to serve the proposed Project. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
732
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-9
3.14.2 WATER SUPPLIES
The following information is based on the City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Richard, 2021B); City of Clovis Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A); and the City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III (Provost & Pritchard, 2017), which is included as Appendix J of this Draft EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Clovis water service area largely aligns with the City’s annexed boundaries. According to the City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update (UWMP), the City’s water system provides water supplies to approximately 122,350 people throughout the City of Clovis and the county island of Tarpey Village. The overall system demands have been increasing in the past five years due to population growth. However, the water use per person saw a sharp decline in 2015 in response to mandatory drought restrictions, followed by a slight increase as the 2012-2016 drought ended. Usage has remained well below pre-drought levels since 2016. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The City has three main water supply sources: groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. As the City continues to grow, it intends to expand its surface water supply use, recycled water use, and to continue intentional groundwater recharge efforts to relieve pressure on the groundwater aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The City’s Public Utilities Department is responsible for water service within the City (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The City's water supply operates via a network of water mains and wells, and maintains treatment and/or disinfection facilities on all City wells thus ensuring high quality drinking water that meets all state and federal standards. The Public Utilities Department operates and maintains the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant and manages all surface water supplies including the acquisition of new supplies for developing areas of the City. This Public Utilities Department also conducts groundwater recharge programs, the water conservation program, rate analyses, and master planning.
The City has 37 water wells to provide for the needs of its residents. Some of these have wellhead treatment facilities to treat contaminated water. The wells discharge water into a distribution main grid, based on a minimum of 12-inch mains, spaced at half-mile intervals.
The City began operations of the Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP), located on the Enterprise Canal on the east side of Clovis, in 2004. Kings River water is supplied to the plant via Fresno Irrigation District’s (FID) Enterprise Canal. This 22.5 million-gallons-per-day plant allows Clovis to serve existing users and new growth areas, while lessening the demand on groundwater.
City of Clovis Water Service Area
The City is located in the northeast quadrant of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area and is situated in the midst of the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley. The City limits currently encompass 25.9 square miles. The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) covers 34.9 square miles, while the City’s General Plan encompasses approximately 74.3 square miles. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). 733
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North According to the UWMP, the City’s Public Utilities Department is the only municipal water purveyor in the City and provides service to approximately 122,350 City-customers. The City’s service area encompasses the City limits and the small unincorporated community of Tarpey Village. The City’s 2020 population was 118,741 while Tarpey Village has an estimated population of 3,609 and is mainly comprised of residential housing. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Within the City’s General Plan Area but outside of the SOI are three county service areas (CSA) and one waterworks district (WWD) that provide water service. Currently, the three CSAs and WWD are considered independent of the City’s utilities and service system. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Current and Projected Population
According to data collected from the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population for the year 2020 was approximately 118,741, while the American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2015-2019) reported that Tarpey Village had a population of 3,609. This corresponds to a service area population of 122,350. The Tarpey Village area is considered built-out; therefore, the population is assumed to remain constant. The City’s population increase over the last ten years has averaged 2.2 percent annually, from 100,895 in 2011 to 118,741 in 2020. It is generally accepted by the City the population growth will slow, meeting the 2040 projection of 174,500 (for Clovis only), yielding a growth rate of 1.9 percent annually. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Within the City’s service area, the documented population is served water supply through the City’s water system and, as the City develops, it is currently anticipated the projected population will be served by the City’s water system; therefore, all population projections are utilized in water system demand projections. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
TABLE 3.14-1: EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Water Demand 122,350 135,015 148,045 162,367 178,109 SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B
Climate
The climate in the City can be classified as a Mediterranean-type climate. Summers are hot and dry, and winters are cool with an average precipitation of about 10.72 inches per year. The area is subject to significant variations in annual precipitation. Most of the annual precipitation occurs during the period from November through April. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The mean annual precipitation is approximately 10 inches. The City experiences hot summer temperatures with many days in the 90°F range from June to September. The average annual temperature is 64.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), although it is not unusual for summer readings to reach well over 100°F. Nighttime temperatures from June to September hover around mid-sixties. The winter temperatures are much colder, with nighttime highs in the forties. Spring and fall provide moderate temperature ranges. A greater quantity of water is evaporated during May through August in correlation to high temperatures and low humidity, which results in high water demand for landscape irrigation. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). 734
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-11 City of Clovis Water Demands
At the General Plan planning horizon in 2035, total demand within the sphere of influence (SOI) is projected to be over 46,000 acre‐feet per year (AFY). Total supply is expected to be 65,034 AFY.
Development to the limits of the SOI is expected to continue the present course of development of surface supplies. The level of reliance on groundwater is planned to stay the same and additional supplies are planned to be served by an expansion of 22.5 MGD at the current SWTP and construction of a second SWTP with capacity of approximately 20 MGD. If there are opportunities for expanded intentional recharge, they are expected to be pursued. (ICF, 2018).
The City UWMP buildout is projected for the year 2083, at which time the population of Clovis is estimated to be 280,000. The average demand for City water at buildout will be approximately 65,400 AFY based on land use demand factors. Surface water requirements are anticipated to increase significantly by 2083. Much of the planned development outside the SOI is in an area with limited groundwater resources and will require the acquisition of surface water supplies. Since this area is outside organized irrigation and water district agencies, it will also be important for the City to contract for surface supplies long before they are needed. Expansion of the surface water treatment facilities is estimated to total approximately 45 MGD. Projected growth will more than double the peak need for water deliveries. The City plans to add new supplies in accordance with increased demands. The City’s existing system has sufficient supplies to meet the demands of planned development within the City’s current SOI boundary to 2035.
City potable and non-potable water demand in 2020 was approximately 30,144 AF. Table 3.14-1 represents the total sum of projected water demands for potable and raw use within the service area. These demands represent the City’s total water demand in the future (recycle water is included). The 2020 data reflects actual 2020 water usage. Table 3.14-2 is completed for ‘normal’ years when no drought conditions are present and water supplies are available in their expected quantities. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A).
TABLE 3.14-2: EXISTING AND PROJECTED TOTAL WATER DEMAND IN NORMAL YEARS, AFY 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Water Demand 30,854 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD 2021B; TABLE 4.6
DRY YEAR WATER DEMAND
The City currently has a water conservation program in place, as described in the City 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The City has six triggering levels which correspond to water shortage levels. The water shortage levels are defined based on the percent reduction in available water supply when compared to a typical year. Each water shortage level has an accompanying goal for water consumption reduction varying from 10 percent to more than 50 percent. The water shortage levels, and their respective anticipated reduction in potable water demand, are shown in
3.14-3.
735
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North TABLE 3.14-3: WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN PROJECTED DEMAND REDUCTION
LEVEL PERCENT SUPPLY REDUCTION
I Up to 10 percent
II Up to 20 percent
III Up to 30 percent
IV Up to 40 percent
V Up to 50 percent
VI Over 50 percent
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021A, TABLE 4-1
As discussed in the City’s 2020 UWMP (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B), the reliability of the water system is reasonably robust; however, in a multiple dry year condition, the City will need to enact the WSCP to reduce demands. Table 3.14-4 displays the normal, single-dry, and multiple dry year demand comparisons. All years of the multiple dry year scenario utilize WSCP levels of conservation efforts. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A).
TABLE 3.14-4: PROJECTED FUTURE DRY YEAR POTABLE AND RAW WATER DEMAND HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Dry Year, AFY 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Single Dry Year, AFY 34,272 37,359 40,957 47,133
Multiple Dry Year 1 36,489 39,422 42,840 48,707
Multiple Dry Year 2 34,183 36,962 40,200 45,758
Multiple Dry Year 3 31,346 33,969 37,028 42,277
Multiple Dry Year 4 28,005 30,474 33,353 38,293
Multiple Dry Year 5 37,825 40,758 44,176 50,043
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B; TABLES 7-3 AND 7-4
WATER SUPPLIES
Surface Water Supply
The City has access to surface water through several different contracts, all of which are delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River. The Central Valley Project is a planned supply for the future. The average delivery the City has received of its total allocation is just over 17,000 AF per year, with the smallest delivery being 9,452 AF in 2015 and the largest of 24,958 in 2017. The City executed a new, firm water supply, agreement with FID in 2019 that provides a surface water supply that does not fluctuate with the FID entitlement or allocation and will be available to the City on a consistent basis. This agreement provides for up to 7,000 AF per year by 2045, beginning at 1,000 AF in 2020. As the City grows and annexes portions of the Garfield and International Water Districts, those CVP, Class I water rights will be transferred to the City and added to the overall water supply portfolio. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 AF. Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015. The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving 736
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-13 water. Over time, the City has received on average 17,011 AFY, though this has varied from 9,452 AF in the severe drought of 2015 to over 24,958 AF in 2017. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Two additional water districts are located within the City’s General Plan Boundaries: Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD). Both have access to Class I CVP surface water supplies. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s Supply. As the districts urbanize, supplies associated with these areas are expected to be added to the City’s supply. The City uses their surface water supplies in two primary ways: (1) as potable water supply after being treated at the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) or (2) as groundwater recharge in various basins located in and around the City’s service area. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Groundwater Supply
The City’s groundwater supplies stem from the basin underlying the area, the Kings Subbasin; the Subbasin holds a status of being critically over drafted. The Kings Subbasin, a non-adjudicated basin, is a high-priority basin which lies within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Basin. This Basin contains multiple interconnected subbasins that transmit, filter, and store water. These subbasins are Kaweah and Tulare Lake to the south, Westside and Delta Mendota to the west, and Madera to the North. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The Kings Subbasin (Subbasin 5-22.08) covers a surface area of approximately 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles). The Department of Water Resources estimated that the total basin storage was about 93,000,000 AF to a depth of more than 1,000 feet. The two major rivers overlying the subbasin are the San Joaquin River and Kings River. The Fresno Slough and James Bypass are along the western edge of the southern basin and connect the Kings River to the San Joaquin River. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The subbasin does have localized water quality impairments, including Dibromochloropropane (DBCP); Nitrate; Ethylene-Dibromide; 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP); Methyl Tert-butyl Ether (MTBE); uranium; arsenic; hexavalent chromium; perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and petroleum hydrocarbons. High concentrations of fluoride, boron, and sodium can be found in localized areas of the subbasin. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
In 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into law to provide a framework for management of groundwater supplies by local agencies and restricts state intervention, if required. SGMA provides an opportunity for local agencies overlying the basin to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which is the primary agency responsible for achieving sustainability. As part of the region’s compliance with SGMA, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA) was formed and includes representatives from Bakman Water Company, Biola Community Services District, City of Fresno, City of Clovis, City of Kerman, County of Fresno, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Garfield 737
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Water District, and International Water District. The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in late 2019.
NORTH KINGS GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
The City is a member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA is working collaboratively, under a coordination agreement with the other six (6) Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the Kings Subbasin to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions by 2040 in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) for critically over drafted groundwater basins such as the Kings Subbasin. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
SGMA identifies six (6) sustainability indicators to be monitored and reported in order to document sustainability: lowering groundwater levels, reduced [groundwater] storage, seawater intrusion, degraded [groundwater] quality, land subsidence, and surface water depletion. The NKGSA documents five (5) of those with seawater intrusion not being applicable to this region. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The City will continue increasing its surface water and recycled water supply usage to a point where the groundwater extraction is not greater than the sustainable yield in a normal year. The sustainable yield is currently estimated at 9,400 AF per year (AFY) for the SOI). (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Potable water production consists of municipal groundwater wells and a Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP). The total groundwater pumping that occurs within the City boundaries include City-owned municipal wells and City-owned park irrigation wells. It is noted that there are other wells within the boundaries of the City of Clovis including CUSD irrigation wells and rural residential domestic wells. The following section provides a summary of the estimated groundwater pumping that occurs within the current City limits and planning area.
City-Produced Groundwater
The City’s system contains more than 37 active permitted wells with a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute with another 4,750 gpm of additional capacity planned in the next few years. In 2020, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Wells are spaced at intervals across the City and are connected to a distribution system. The pipes are sized for local distribution and have, in certain instances, presented some restrictions to crosstown water supply distribution. The transmission network consists primarily of 12-inch mains on a one-half mile grid with extensive looping. The wells are controlled by a telemetry system that controls pump operation as well as independent controls in case of remote computer failure. The production rate of the existing wells varies from approximately 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to approximately 2,200 gpm. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).
738
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-15
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER PUMPING
The water system was initially constructed near the turn of the 20th century, when the first municipal well was installed, and up until July 2004, the City’s sole source of drinking water was groundwater. The City currently obtains groundwater from 37 active permitted wells and one standby well, which have a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute (gpm). There are also six planned wells, adding an additional planned capacity of 4,750 gpm, bringing the total well capacity to 42,440 gpm. In 2023, seven of the existing active wells (Wells 10, 18, 31, 32, 36, 40, and T-5) are offline due to Nitrate, Iron, Manganese, TCP, or PFAS water quality concerns, and one well (Well 20) is listed as standby due to iron and manganese concerns. TCP, PFAS, DBCP and high iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) are the main water quality constraints in the Clovis area. Four (4) more of the City’s wells are currently on inactive status due to being dry or producing too much sand (Wells 3, 11, T-1, and T-3). (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
In 2020, groundwater provided approximately 49 percent of the total potable water use. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City over the past five years is provided in Table
3.14-5. The groundwater extraction has reduced since 2016 and is expected to continue to be reduced, as discussed later in this section. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
In 2020, recharge was 5,316 AF, while the City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY. In the past 30 years the groundwater table has dropped 48 feet, from a depth of 92 feet in 1991 to a depth of 140 feet in 2019. Recharge efforts began in 1974, and in 2004 the City began utilizing surface water with the goal of reducing groundwater extraction. Recharge efforts by the City have not been enough to stem the decline as the basin is shared with other users who either don’t recharge or inadequately recharge. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Groundwater pumping by City wells (potable and irrigation) from 2016 to 2020 is summarized in Table 3.14-5.
TABLE 3.14-5: HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Groundwater Supply, AFY 13,187 12,001 11,991 10,956 12,105 SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B; TABLE 6-2
Recycled Water
The City’s ST-WRF produces tertiary treated effluent that can be used for a variety of applications but is primarily used either as agriculture or landscape irrigation, with the remaining being discharged to nearby creeks. The City intends to continue to expand the beneficial users of the recycled water supply and show the volumes in the water supply portfolio. Use of recycled water in this manner will continue to offset the City’s use of potable sources for non-potable demands, such as irrigation. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Currently, the City provides recycled water for landscape and agricultural irrigation at 66 metered sites (through 129 metered services). There is a goal of expanding the users to include schools within 739
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the Clovis Unified School District in the future as discussed in the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
A total of 574 AF of recycled water was used in 2020 to irrigate landscape, while 136 AF was used for agricultural irrigation. Current areas receiving recycled water include Freeway 168 between Shepherd Avenue and Sierra Avenue, Clovis Community Medical Center, and multiple City parks and landscape areas. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Potable Water Supply Availability and Reliability
The City’s surface water and groundwater supply reliability as described in the City’s 2020 UWMP is summarized below.
SURFACE WATER RELIABILITY
Surface water is supplied from the Kings River and conveyed to the City by the FID. The Kings River is impacted by the level of snowmelt and precipitation received in the area and is susceptible to dry conditions. The City’s contract with FID ensures that the City receives a percentage of the total FID entitlement, approximately 2.1 AF per acre within the FID boundary; the City’s area is capped at 7.12 percent of the FID boundary or approximately 32,100 AFY in a normal water year. Additionally, the City has recently executed an additional contract with FID for development of a new, firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter; this new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply based on water year.
Historically, FID’s entitlement on the Kings River has been considered reliable although it was affected significantly by the recent drought.
The most probable water supply in the City’s portfolio to be impacted by climate change is the surface water supply. The NKGSP examined the reliability of the Kings River supply and concluded that the agencies reliant on the Kings Subbasin could continue to plan on those supplies with climate change factored in, stating specifically, “Kings River water supplies available to the Kings Subbasin will be managed in the future to maintain historical levels of water supplies.” Evaluation of the Kings River supplies into the future, considering climate change impacts of warmer temperatures, showed more precipitation occurring as rainfall and less as snowfall and that the snowfall (snowpack) will have a tendency to melt sooner in the season. The biggest impact this shift will have is on water management, including additional reservoir storage and increased recharge during low-use periods.
The GSP further states that “climate change will have no significant impact on Kings River diversions.” (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The supply is greater than the demand for each year and reflects the projected surplus during a normal water year. During a single-dry year, surface water allotments are anticipated to be reduced by as much as 66 percent for Kings River surface water supplies, and CVP Class II supplies are eliminated completely in dry years. In the future, as the City becomes more reliant on surface water supplies, the impact of surface water reductions in dry years will be more significant. Demand reductions due to water shortage measures are included in the demand estimates. During a singledry year demands will be reduced by temporarily eliminating groundwater recharge activities and implementing the water shortage contingency plan as necessary. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). 740
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-17 To provide protection for the system, planning for a 20 percent supply excess over demands is a guiding principle. Therefore, while during the first-year adequate supplies are available for normal demands and no demand reductions are required, voluntary conservation will be promoted, and recharge activities may be curtailed to maintain an adequate supply buffer for the system. During the subsequent second, third, and fourth years, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be implemented with varying levels of mandatory conservation required for all users. In addition, the City may choose to reduce groundwater recharge activities and will be utilizing banked groundwater to augment the City’s supply. As with the 2012-2016 drought period, it is anticipated the final year will begin to see an improvement in supply availability and some restrictions may be relaxed; however, if that is not the case, the City may need to continue mandatory conservation strategies. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The water obtained from the Central Valley Project comes from the diversion and storage of water from the San Joaquin River behind Friant Dam. The total available water on the San Joaquin River has been estimated at 2,200,000 AF. Of that, 800,000 AF have been designated as Class I supply.
Class I supply is considered to be dependable in most years with shortages only in very dry years.
Class II water is in excess of Class I and is therefore much less dependable. FID has a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for 75,000 AF of Class II water from this source. The agreement between the City and FID requires the District to make available to the City the proportional share of all surface water available to the District although it does not allow the City to directly receive FID’s Central Valley Project supplies. Therefore, FID is required to make a like amount of Kings River (or any other surface) water available to the City for its proportional share of Class II Central Valley Project supplies. FID’s Class II contract has received an average 13,577 AFY with the actual number ranging from zero to the full 75,000 AF depending upon the nature of each water year over that period. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY
There are many factors that can affect groundwater supply reliability, including current storage conditions, water quality, seasonal groundwater level variations and climate change. Reduced use by the City, combined with seasonal variations such as intense wet seasons, can result in increased groundwater table elevation.
Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective, and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040, as required. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. In the 2010 and 2015 UWMPs, the City’s groundwater supplies were shown to be increasing with population growth into the future. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City from 2016 to 2020 ranged from 10,956 in 2019 to as high as 13,187 in 2016. In 2020, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated 741
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.
The City has been searching for additional land to construct another dedicated groundwater recharge facility in the City. The facility will likely be in North Clovis upgradient of City wells. A minimum of 20 to 40 acres is desired with a minimum recharge capability of 1,500 to 3,000 AF per year. An additional project that the City is pursuing in cooperation with FID, FMFCD, and the City of Fresno, is either reoperation of Big Dry Creek Detention Basin, known as the Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project, to allow storage of East Side Stream Flood releases or a project to increase recharge capabilities upstream of the Basin. This is currently in the study phase. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
In addition, there are two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facilities (WBF) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (BGBF), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City plans on taking the water in dry years to augment supply. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
The groundwater supplies the City relies upon are not adjudicated. The surface water supplies have either long-range contracts or newly executed contracts to document quantities and availability to the City. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area, and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area.
The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells.
Groundwater use may increase as population increases, and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).
The ’sustainable yield’ is defined as the amount of groundwater pumping that can occur while maintain groundwater at sustainable levels and avoiding undesirable results. The sustainable yield can be estimated as the total groundwater recharge (from natural and artificial sources) minus the groundwater outflow (as shown below). The GSP of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency indicates that the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin is approximately 1,140,000 AFY/acre (1,360,000 AF -220,000 AF).
With regards to the 2020 groundwater supply, as provided by the City’s UWMP, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.
Groundwater pumping accounted for 26 percent of the City’s total available water supply, but will 742
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-19 be reduced over the planning horizon for the UWMP. The actual 2020 supply for the service area consisted of surface water, groundwater, supply water from storage and recycled water; the overall supply available to the City for 2020 was 53,748 AF. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). Future supply projections through 2040 are shown in Table 6-13.
TABLE 3.14-6: PROJECTED GROUNDWATER SUPPLY, AFY
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Assumed Groundwater
Supply 12,105 11,429 10,753 10,076 9,400
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B, TABLE 6-13.
REGULATORY SETTING
California Department of Health Services
The Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, oversees the Drinking Water Program. The Drinking Water Program regulates public water systems and certifies drinking water treatment and distribution operators. It provides support for small water systems and for improving their technical, managerial, and financial capacity. It provides subsidized funding for water system improvements under the State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) and Proposition 50 programs. The Drinking Water Program also oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, supports and promotes water system security, and oversees the Drinking Water Treatment and Research Fund for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) and other oxygenates.
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20 requires all public water systems to prepare a Consumer Confidence Report for distribution to its customers and to the Department of Health Services. The Consumer Confidence Report provides information regarding the quality of potable water provided by the water system. It includes information on the sources of the water, any detected contaminants in the water, the maximum contaminants levels set by regulation, violations and actions taken to correct them, and opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water provided.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act has as its objectives the management of urban water demands and the efficient use of urban water. Under its provisions, every urban water supplier is required to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan. An “urban water supplier” is a public or private water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually.
The plan must identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier, quantify the projected water use for a period of 20 years, and describe the supplier’s water demand management measures. The urban water supplier should make every effort to ensure the 743
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North appropriate level of reliability in its water service is sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Department of Water Resources must receive a copy of an adopted urban water management plan.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, as passed in 1947 and amended in 1986 and 1996, is the Country’s primary law regulating drinking water quality and is implemented by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the US EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water and requires actions to protect drinking water and its sources. Additionally, it provides for treatment, monitoring, sampling, analytical methods, reporting, and public information requirements. Implementation of the Act, in California, is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. Drinking Water regulations are set forth in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Titles 7 and 22.
Water Conservation Projects Act
California’s requirements for water conservation are codified in the Water Conservation Projects Act of 1985 (Water Code Sections 11950 – 11954).
Consistent with California Water Code Sections 11950 – 11954, the City has implemented various water conservation efforts, as well as a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that identifies actions that can be taken to respond to catastrophic interruption of water supply.
California Water Code
Water Code section 10910 states:
10910(c)(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g). 10910(d)(1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
10910(d)(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
744
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-21 (A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply.
(B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. (C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. (D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
10910(e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an identification of the other public water systems or water service contract-holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments.
Additionally, Water Code section 10910 states:
10910(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment. 10910(f)(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
10910(f)(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as over drafted or has projected that the basin will become over drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long term overdraft condition.
745
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 10910(f)(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied.
The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records.
A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records.
10910(f)(4) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project.
A water assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.
Senate Bill (SB) 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was adopted in 2001 and reflects the growing awareness of the need to incorporate water supply and demand analysis at the earliest possible stage in the land use planning process. SB 610 amended the statutes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. The foundation document for compliance with SB 610 is the UWMP, which provides an important source of information for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Likewise, planning documents such as general plans and specific plans form the basis for the demand information contained in an UWMP, as well as a WSA required under SB 610.
Water Code Section 10910 (c)(4) states “If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.” Water supply planning under SB 610 requires reviewing and identifying adequate available water supplies necessary to meet the demand generated by a project, as well as the cumulative demand for the general region over the next 20 years, under a broad range of water conditions. This 746
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-23 information is typically found in the current UWMP for the project area. SB 610 requires the identification of the public water supplier for a project.
In addition, SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA if a project meets the definition of a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912 (a). The code defines a “Project” as meeting any of the following criteria:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A commercial building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of these elements; or • A project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units.
Alternately, if a public water system has less than 5,000 service connections, the definition of a “Project” includes any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of service connections for the public water system.
Based on the following, SB 610 applies to the proposed Project:
1. The proposed Project is subject to CEQA and an EIR is required.
2. The proposed Project, with up to 605 proposed residential dwelling units, meets the definition of a “Project” as specified in Water Code section 10912(a) paragraph (1) as defined for residential development.
The proposed Project has not been the subject of a previously adopted WSA and has not been included in an adopted WSA for a larger project. Thus, a WSA, as required by these criteria under SB 610, has been prepared for the Project. The WSA is included in Appendix J of this EIR.
Senate Bill (SB) 221
SB 221 adds Government Code Section 66455.3, requiring that the local water agency be sent a copy of any proposed residential subdivision of more than 500 dwelling units within five days of the subdivision application being accepted as complete for processing by the city or county. It also adds Government Code Section 66473.7, establishing detailed requirements for establishing whether a “sufficient water supply” exists to support any proposed residential subdivisions of more than 500 747
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North dwellings, including any such subdivision involving a development agreement. When approving a qualifying subdivision tentative map, the city or county must include a condition requiring availability of a sufficient water supply. The applicable public water system must provide proof of availability. If there is no public water system, the city or county must undertake the analysis described in Government Code Section 66473.7. The analysis must include consideration of effects on other users of water and groundwater.
Executive Order B-37-16
In May 2016, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Junior, signed Executive Order B-37-16 (Executive Order), Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life. The Executive Order directed DWR to work with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to develop new water use targets as part of a permanent conservation framework for urban water agencies. The targets will build upon requirements established in the 2009 Water Conservation Act, but will strengthen standards for indoor residential per capita water use, outdoor irrigation, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) water use, and water lost through leaks. DWR will be establishing interim water use targets by 2018, with final standards to be published by 2021. Agencies will need to demonstrate progress towards achieving final compliance in 2025 (DWR, 2017).
City of Clovis General Plan
Policies: Land Use Element
• Policy 4.2 Surface water entitlements. The city should not approve annexation unless any and all surface water entitlements are retained; any and all surface water entitlements shall be transferred to the city upon development.
Policies: Public Facilities and Services Element
• Policy 1.1 New development. New development shall pay its fair share of public facility and infrastructure improvements.
• Policy 1.2 Water supply. Require that new development demonstrate contractual and actual sustainable water supplies adequate for the new development’s demands. • Policy 1.3 Annexation. Prior to annexation, the city must find that adequate water supply and service and wastewater treatment and disposal capacity can be provided for the proposed annexation. Existing water supplies must remain with the land and be transferred to the City upon annexation approval.
• Policy 1.4 Development-funded facilities. The City may require developments to install onsite or offsite facilities that are in excess of a development’s fair share. However, the City shall establish a funding mechanism for future development to reimburse the original development for the amount in excess of the fair share costs. • Policy 1.5 Recycled water. Use recycled water to reduce the demands for new water supplies. Support the expansion of recycled water infrastructure throughout Clovis and require new development to install recycled water infrastructure where feasible. • Policy 1.6 Master plans. Periodically update water, recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater master plans and require all new development to be consistent with the current master plans.
• Policy 1.7 Groundwater. Stabilize groundwater levels by requiring that new development water demands not exceed the sustainable groundwater supply. 748
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-25 • Policy 1.8 Water facility protection. Protect existing and future water, wastewater, and recycled water facilities from encroachment by incompatible land uses that may be allowed through discretionary land use permits or changes in land use or zoning designations.
Policies: Open Space and Conservation Element
• Policy 3.5 Energy and water conservation. Encourage new development and substantial rehabilitation projects to exceed energy and water conservation and reduction standards set in the California Building Code.
City of Clovis Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 3.10 Development Impact Fees, The purpose of this chapter is to establish a uniform set of procedures applicable to AB 1600 development impact fees that are adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and the Municipal Code. These procedures are intended to apply to all AB 1600 development impact fees adopted by the City, regardless of whether there is an existing similar provision in the applicable chapter or section of the Municipal Code establishing the fee. If there is a conflict between this chapter and an existing similar provision in the applicable chapter or section of the Municipal Code establishing the fee, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
Chapter 6.5, Water System and Chapter 6.6, Wells, are contained within Title 6, Sanitation and Health. Chapter 6.5 contains five different articles that all pertain to specific aspects of the interconnected Water System the City and its residents rely on. Article 1 of Chapter 6.5 deals with Service Rates and Regulations; Article 2 discusses Main Extensions, Connections, and Frontage Chargers; Article 3 regulates Meters, Main Connections, and Laterals; Article 4 establishes rules for Heat Transfer Systems Utilizing Water; and Article 5 establishes Water Efficient Landscape Requirements. Chapter 6.6 regulates well drilling, prohibited acts, permits required, use requirements, recharge charges, and the use of drainage wells.
The City Municipal Code also contains Chapter 8.6, Plumbing Code. This Chapter adopts the California Plumbing Code and includes specific amendments.
Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III (2017)
The primary purpose of the Water Master Plan is to examine the feasibility of continued growth in the greater Clovis area from a water resource stand-point and develop a plan for implementation of facilities as well as development of a plan for acquisition of water supplies as the City continues to grow in an easterly direction with more limited groundwater supplies.
This report represents an update of the Phase 1 and 2 reports that were prepared in 1995 and 1999 respectively, that provided a blueprint for the future development of the city’s water system. This report documents the past years’ efforts in evaluating the existing system and developing the future plan for the system.
Clovis Wastewater Master Plan (2017)
The Clovis Wastewater Master Plan Update, Phase 3 was adopted in 2017. The wastewater master plan update process consisted generally of developing design criteria, defining wastewater service 749
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North areas, developing wastewater flow projections, analyzing and designing collection system pipelines, and summarizing results. The Wastewater Master Plan Update, Phase 3, (2017 Master Plan) is the latest phase of an effort begun in 1995 to update the City’s Wastewater Master Plan. The preceding phase, referred to as the Wastewater Master Plan Update, Phase 2, (2008 Master Plan) was documented in a final report dated June 30, 2008. Under the 2017 Master Plan, the core of the city is planned to discharge to regional trunk sewers and on to the Fresno-Clovis RWRF in southwest Fresno.
Clovis Recycled Water Master Plan (2017)
The City of Clovis released a Recycled Water Master Plan in 2017. This Plan demonstrates how the water systems in the City will accommodate future population growth. Due to the impact of a fiveyear drought throughout the state, the scarcity of water supplies has resulted in significant motivation to continue investment in the use of recycled water to meet water demands. The purpose of the Clovis Recycled Water Master Plan Update is to evaluate current recycled water use, identify additional market opportunities as defined in the adopted General Plan, and produce an implementation plan incorporating recycled water as a significant portion of the Clovis’ water supply. The efficient use of surface water and groundwater resources is critical to maintaining sustainability of communities throughout the Central Valley. To help alleviate potable water demands placed on these supplies, recycled water is a key source of supply many communities, including Clovis, utilize to enhance management of local water resources.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project may have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-3: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing water facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant)
The Project area will be annexed to the City and will require an extension of existing potable and non‐potable systems. The proposed water system will be located within the proposed public utilities easements and be connected to existing City mains and will comply with City Master Plans and standards. The City of Clovis provides water supplies to the City of Clovis. The City has three main water supply sources: groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. The City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Surface water is delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project. 750
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-27 The City’s ST-WRF produces tertiary treated effluent that can be used for agriculture or landscape irrigation.
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The Project Site would be served by a new potable water distribution system. The proposed water system will be located within the proposed public utilities easements and be connected to existing City mains and will comply with City Master Plans and standards. The proposed on-site water distribution system will have various points-of-connection to existing City mains. The Project will connect to the existing water main lines along nearby roadways. Additionally, an internal looped system of water lines will be installed within the Project Site.
NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
The Project Site would include the development of an on-site non-potable water distribution system that would eventually provide irrigation water to planned parks, open space, and landscaped areas.
This system will include a non-potable irrigation well which will be constructed by the project. All landscape irrigation is to be installed with non-potable components.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Project site will provide an adequate potable and non-potable water distribution systems in strict accordance with City Master Plans and standards. Furthermore, the construction of the new water facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the proposed Project, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the water system and all construction activities within the Development Area of the Project Site, are addressed throughout this EIR. There are no other anticipated impacts associated with the infrastructure construction activities beyond what is already discussed throughout this EIR. The installation of the water system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Impact 3.14-4: The proposed Project does not have the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant)
The Project site would be served by a new potable and non-potable water distribution system. The proposed water system will be located within the proposed public utilities easements and be connected to existing city mains and will comply with City Master Plans and standards. The City of Clovis provides water supplies to the City of Clovis. The City has three main water supply sources:
groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. The City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Surface water is delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project. The City’s ST-WRF produces tertiary treated effluent that can be used for agriculture or landscape irrigation. 751
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Proposed Project: The Project site is approximately 155 acres within 39 Assessor parcels (APNs).
This includes the Development Area (77acres), and the Non-development Area (78 acres). The proposed Project includes an annexation of three APNs totaling approximately 77 acres; this includes the Development Area. The Tentative Subdivision Map would result in the subdivision of a total of approximately 77 acres into 605 single family residential units, with an additional 52 out lots for roads, utilities, greenspace, landscaping, and pedestrian paths. The Non-development area includes the parcels being annexed that will not be entitled for subdivision or development.
Projected Water Demand for the Proposed Project: As discussed above, water would be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. The Project would receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. According to the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed Project, the proposed Project has an associated Land Use-based Water Demand Factor (WDF of 3.3 AFY/acre associated with Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) based on the City’s UWMP. The projected water demand for the proposed Project is shown in Table 3.14-7. The total projected annual potable water demand for the Project is projected to be 255.8 AFY.
TABLE 3.14-7: PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
LAND USE UNIT FACTOR ACREAGE WATER DEMAND (AFY)
Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) 3.3 77.5 255.8
Total -- 77.5 255.8
NOTES: BASED ON LAND USE-BASED WATER DEMAND FACTOR (WDF) OF 0.7 AFY/ACRE. AFY = ACRE-FEET PER YEAR.
SOURCE: TRACT 6205, NORTHWEST SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION AREA. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP, 2022).
As shown in table 3.14-7, the total proposed water demand amounts to approximately 1.6% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table ES-3 of the 2020 UWMP.
This indicates an ability of the City to serve this project in the interim while additional supplies are acquired to accommodate full build-out of the GP.
Projected Water Supply for the Proposed Project: Water demands for the proposed Project will be served using the City’s existing and future portfolio of water supplies. The inclusion of existing and planned future supplies is specifically allowed by the Water Code:
Water Code section 10631(b): Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a).
The applicants for the proposed Project will provide their proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition and delivery of treated potable water supplies to the Project site.
Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610: Water Code section 10910 states:
752
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-29 10910(c)(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
Pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(4) and based on the technical analyses described in the UWMP, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project as shown in table 3.14-7, in addition to existing and planned future uses.
A comparison of the City’s projected potable and raw water supplies and demands is shown in Table
3.14-8 for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years. Demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any Normal year between 2020 and 2040. From this analysis, the City’s water demands are not expected to exceed water supplies in Single Dry Years or Multiple Dry Years.
TABLE 3.14-8: SUMMARY OF POTABLE AND RAW WATER DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC
NORMAL, SINGLE DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
HYDROLOGIC CONDITION
SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040
NORMAL YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650 Total Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
SINGLE DRY YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 37,839 43,587 47,233 53,109 Total Water Demand 34,272 37,359 40,957 47,133
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 3,567 6,228 6,276 5,976
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
MULTIPLE DRY YEAR
Multiple
Dry
Year 1
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 46,784 54,607 60,330 68,999 Total Water Demand 36,489 39,422 42,840 48,707
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,294 15,185 17,489 20,292 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 2
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 45,093 52,576 57,958 66,095 Total Water Demand 34,183 36,962 40,200 45,758
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,910 15,614 17,758 20,337 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 3
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 41,895 48,310 52,625 59,717 Total Water Demand 31,346 33,969 37,028 42,277
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,550 14,341 15,597 17,440 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 37,839 43,587 47,233 53,109 Total Water Demand 28,005 30,474 33,353 38,293
753
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Multiple
Dry
Year 4
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 9,834 13,112 13,881 14,815
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 5
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 49,743 57,992 64,141 73,716 Total Water Demand 37,825 40,758 44,176 50,043
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 11,918 17,235 19,965 23,674 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B.
CONCLUSION
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies. 754
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-31
3.14.3 STORMWATER
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Stormwater throughout the City of Clovis is collected in Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) basins. Unless the storm season is particularly wet, the collected stormwater is allowed to percolate into the soil as groundwater recharge. Additionally, the FMFCD allows the City to utilize 17 stormwater basins throughout the City’s Service Area for recharge purposes. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).
FMFCD covers the entire Fresno/Clovis Metropolitan Area and is authorized to control storm waters within an urban and rural foothill watershed of approximately 400 square miles, known as the Fresno County Stream Group. The FMFCD provides storm drainage through a system of inlets, drainage pipes, drainage ponds, and a system of dams and channels upstream. This system provides the primary means of urban storm drainage control for the City of Clovis and its sphere of influence.
New storm drainage improvements are made by either development fees or by formation of assessment or improvement districts. The City of Clovis has a representative on the FMFCD Board. (City of Clovis, 2014).
On September 16, 1994, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) issued the first municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. CA0083500 to the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District) and four other Co-Permittees, including the City of Clovis. The Regional Water Board renewed the permit on May 31, 2013 (Order No. R5-2013-0080). (FMFCD, 2020).
The FMFCD operates and maintains all master plan improvements, including the retention basins.
The City is responsible for operation and maintenance of all temporary facilities where master plan improvements are not complete. The City is also responsible for all surface flooding in streets and other areas where storm water cannot reach inlets and pipes quickly enough. Storm drainage collection facilities are designed for two-year storm capacity. Storm drain retention basins are designed for 50-year storm frequency. Development impact fees finance acquisition and construction of ponding basins. Storm drainage improvement districts fund development of storm drainage systems for existing urban areas. (City of Clovis, 2014).
Clovis is traversed by three natural stream systems. Each of these systems consists of sub streams or creeks that collect together to discharge to a centralized natural drainage channel. These systems are the Red Bank, Fancher, and Dog Creek System; the Dry and Dog Creek System; and the Pup Creek/Alluvial Drain System. The latter is a tributary of the original Dry Creek channel. These stream systems collect storm runoff from the foothills east of Clovis and convey such runoff through the Clovis/Fresno metropolitan areas to the Fresno Slough, which is located west of the City of Fresno. (County of Fresno, 2018).
The City’s Public Utilities Department has three Stormwater Patrol teams, made up of 22 public utilities employees, to implement emergency flood control measures. The plan contains information and procedures to rapidly address flooding throughout the City. Contact information and team 755
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North assignment data is updated regularly as are geographic locations subject to flooding. Appendices include suppliers/contractors, storm basin list, problem drain lists, and partnerships and agencies with shared responsibility for storm preparedness, mitigation, and response. (County of Fresno, 2018).
Existing City Stormwater and Flood Control Facilities
Flood protection in Clovis is afforded by Big Dry Creek Dam on Dry Creek. Big Dry Creek Dam is located approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the City of Clovis. Its main purpose is flood control, and it has a storage capacity of 16,250 acre-feet. Big Dry Creek Reservoir has prevented an estimated $15 million in damage in the Fresno-Clovis area since its completion in 1948. (County of Fresno, 2018).
The Big Dry Creek Dam impounds stormwater runoff from Big Dry Creek in the Big Dry Creek Reservoir. The Big Dry Creek Reservoir is owned and operated by the FMFCD and is intended primarily for flood control of winter runoff from the Dry Creek and Dog Creek watersheds. In the 1990s, modifications were made to increase the capacity of the reservoir, and it now provides protection against the 200-year flood. (County of Fresno, 2018).
Under wet conditions, the Big Dry Creek Reservoir captures runoff and controls releases into artificial ditches and canals, which drain into either Little Dry Creek, located north of the reservoir, or in a southerly direction into Mill Ditch. Flows from Little Dry Creek and Mill Ditch eventually drain to the San Joaquin River. Flows from the reservoir can also be diverted into Dog Creek, which also eventually drains into the San Joaquin River. During dry weather conditions, the reservoir does not discharge water and is normally empty, with the exception of a 156-acre-foot residual pool. The top of the pool remains below the elevation of an existing discharge gate. (County of Fresno, 2018).
Further, on average, FMFCD’s regional stormwater basin system captures 92 percent of annual rainfall, of which, 70-85 percent of the captured stormwater runoff is recharged into the local groundwater aquifer. The stormwater basins also remove 50-80 percent of the typical stormwater pollutants. (FMFCD, 2020).
Mitigation activities continue to be done in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements for floodplain management and in coordination with the FMFCD. Additional mitigation measures for critical infrastructure protection and rehabilitation are done through the City’s Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget. To date, those mitigation projects have included fire station security, water/sewer infrastructure improvements and City Hall building rehabilitation. (County of Fresno, 2018).
Future Stormwater Drainage Demand and System Improvements The 2016 Storm Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Services Plan provides a comprehensive planning document to guide improvement and expansion of the City’s storm drainage system to meet current and future needs in a safe and reliable manner while maintaining compliance with all applicable regulations.
756
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-33 The FMFCD has finalized the design of the Dry Creek Extension Basin located near Brawley and Annadale Avenues. This will be a rural flood control basin located southwest of the City of Fresno. It will provide storage for floodwaters flowing through Dry Creek and other canals, which will provide groundwater recharge benefits. The initial design of the basin was for a 20-acre basin site which is fully excavated. The FMFCD added an adjacent 23-acre site to provide additional storage. This basin is being constructed by the District and is not part of the Federal Redbank and Fancher Creeks Project. (FMFCD, 2017).
The FMFCD has identified four primary groups of construction projects: (1) the Redbank‐Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project; (2) District LCA enhancement projects; (3) new development projects; and (4) other routine District maintenance and construction projects. (FMFCD, 2017).
The Corps' Redbank‐Fancher Creeks Project, completed in the summer of 1993, provides the points of control for the flows that will pass through the rural streams storm and flood conveyance system.
Under the LCA with the Corps, the FMFCD is obligated to ensure proper functioning of the Redbank Fancher Creeks Project components. Through implementation of the rural streams program, the FMFCD will improve conveyance capacities of existing channels where necessary, restore obstructed and eradicated channels, and once adequate capacity is achieved, maintain appropriate project conveyance capabilities. These efforts will involve close coordination with private property owners and developers to obtain necessary channel easement dedications. These dedications preserve flooding rights-of-way and allow District access to the stream channels for operation and maintenance. (FMFCD, 2017).
As future development needs warrant, local drainage facilities will be added to augment the flood control facilities. The FMFCD will review new development plans to ensure appropriate design of channels according to the Rural Streams Design Manual, which is currently being developed by the District. Other routine District activities include construction, repair, and maintenance of flood control structures throughout the rural streams/flood control system. (FMFCD, 2017).
REGULATORY SETTING
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the water quality of all discharges into waters of the United States including wetlands, perennial and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341 of the CWA sets forth water quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” Section 404, Title 33, Section 1344 of the CWA in part authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to:
• Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites”: subparagraph (a);
• Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); 757
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas”: subparagraph (c);
• Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); • Provide for individual State or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j);
• Withdraw approval of such State or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); • Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); • Exempt certain Federal or State projects from regulation under this Section: subparagraph (r); and,
• Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations:
subparagraph (s).
• Section 401 certification is required prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The California State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs enforce State of California statutes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal statutes. RWQCBs are responsible for establishing water quality standards and objectives that protect the beneficial uses of various waters including the San Joaquin River, and other waters in the surrounding area. In the city the RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface and groundwater from both point and non-point sources of pollution. Water quality objectives for all of the water bodies within the City were established by the RWQCB and are listed in its Basin Plan.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti- degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.
These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, 758
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-35 the SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fresno County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program administered by FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.
Communities are occasionally audited by the Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.
Department of Water Resources
The Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State's water resources, planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System, protecting and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, regulating dams, providing flood protection, assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property, educating the public, and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, the DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water; facilitates voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.
California Water Code
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include 759
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.
The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region. (3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.
State Water Resource Control Board (State Water Board) Stormwater Strategy
The Stormwater Strategy is founded on the results of the Stormwater Strategic Initiative, which served to direct the State Water Board’s role in Stormwater resources management. The Stormwater Strategy developed guiding principles to serve as the foundation of the Stormwater program; identified issues that support or inhibit the program from aligning with the guiding principles; and proposed and prioritized projects that the Water Boards could implement to address those issues. The State Water Board staff created a strategy-based document called the Strategy to Optimize Management of Stormwater (STORMS). STORMS includes a program vision, missions, goals, objectives, projects, timelines, and consideration of the most effective integration of project outcomes into the Water Board’s Stormwater Program.
Stormwater Quality
The State Water Board adopted Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ in 2013, which requires that agencies regulate post-construction development (Provision E.12) through a number of different program elements. In response to this order, several permittees, including Clovis, and Fresno County collaborated together to develop the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program, dated November 2013.
760
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-37 Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program (2013) The Storm Water Quality Management Program (SWQMP) was developed pursuant to Order No.
R5-2013-0080. The municipal NPDES stormwater permit (MS4 Permit) was issued to the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District), the cities of Fresno and Clovis, the County of Fresno (County), and the California State University at Fresno (CSUF) by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) on May 31, 2013. The SWQMP represents the five-year management strategy for controlling the discharge of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff from the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area to the during the third Permit term (2013-2018).
The SWQMP includes specific pollution prevention and control practices for Fresno-Clovis urban drainage system planning, design, construction, and maintenance. The Program also includes public education to prevent stormwater pollution; specifies construction, industrial/commercial, municipal, and new development control practices; procedures to prevent and respond to illicit discharges and connections; monitoring to assess stormwater impacts on receiving waters; and program effectiveness assessments (PEA) to evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs).
To address the core program objectives and targeted stormwater pollutants and to ensure compliance with MS4 Permit requirements, the SWQMP incorporates a series of control measures, performance standards, and implementation schedules that provide for a long-term, comprehensive, and multidisciplinary effort by the Permittees to continue to achieve water quality standards and protect beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River, creeks and canals.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.
The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities.
The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.
761
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North City of Clovis General Plan
Policies: Public Facilities & Services Element
• Policy 1.6 Master plans. Periodically update water, recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater master plans and require all new development to be consistent with the current master plans.
Policies: Environmental Health Element
• Policy 1.1 Flood zone. Prohibit development within the 100-year flood zone and dam inundation areas unless adequate mitigation is provided against flood hazards. Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Policies: Open Space & Conservation Element
• Policy 3.1 Stormwater management. Encourage the use of low impact development techniques that retain or mimic natural features for stormwater management. • Policy 3.2 Stormwater pollution. Minimize the use of non-point source pollutants and stormwater runoff.
• Policy 3.3 Well water. Prohibit the use of new private wells in new development.
City of Clovis Municipal Code
The purpose and intent of Chapter 6.7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens, and protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) by reducing pollutants in urban storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non-storm water discharges to the storm drain system.
Chapter 8.7, Planned Local Drainage Facilities and Improvements Development Requirements, Financing Mechanisms and Fees, was established due to the finding that the development of land substantially accelerates the concentration of surface and storm waters and that it is necessary to provide for the construction of and establish, and collect, fees to defray all or a part of the actual or the estimated cost of constructing planned local drainage facilities for the control and safe disposal of surface and storm waters from local drainage areas in order to promote and protect the public safety, peace, comfort, and convenience and the general welfare. Further, the Municipal Code also contains Chapter 8.12, Floodplain Management, which aims to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry through adequate floodplain and flood hazard management and mitigation.
Chapter 8.12 provides for floodplain management and regulates development in floodplains. A development permit must be obtained before construction or development within any area of special flood hazard. Permits require provisions for flood hazard reduction, including anchoring, flood-resistant materials, and construction methods to floodproof the structure.
Chapter 9.110 provides subdivision design and improvement requirements. Per Section 9.110.040, a grading plan is required to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of 762
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-39 a subdivision-level building permit. Subdivisions are required to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control measures.
Chapter 9.28 contains landscaping standards and requires a landscape design plan, irrigation design plan, and soil analysis in order to reduce runoff and control soil erosion as part of the landscape documentation package.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project may have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-5: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant)
Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater.
As shown on Figure 3.9-2, the majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone.
The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no 763
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB) and City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
FMFCD will require lot coverage to be provided prior to submittal of improvement plans. The lot coverage is calculated by the District to include the front yard walkway, sidewalk walkway and the rear yard patio equaling an additional 6% of impervious area in addition to the City’s typical lot coverage calculation. This calculation cannot be calculated at this time given that building plans and lot specific landscaping and site improvements have not been prepared. This very detailed level of design would be performed at either the improvement plan or building plan phase of the project.
Ultimately, FMFCD charges a drainage fee that is calculated commensurate with the lot coverage calculation.
FMFCD reviews all grading and improvement plans for consistency with the FMFCD Master Plan.
This review ensures that grading does not have an adverse impact to major storm conveyance and to the passage of storm water to the adjacent roadways and existing storm drainage pipelines and inlets. They require all projects to provide the appropriate surface flowage easements or covenants for any portion of the development area that cannot convey storm water to the public right-of-way without crossing private property.
The initial review by FMFCD has indicated that the “Development Area” is currently located within FMFCD’s adopted Rural Master Plan Drainage Area “BY1.” The adopted Rural Master Plan drainage system is designed to serve the existing land uses of open space, range/pasture and rural residential housing densities ranging from 0 to 0.7 dwelling unit/acre (du/ac). FMFCD has indicated that the existing planned drainage facilities do not have capacity to serve the proposed higher urban density residential land use. FMFCD has indicated that the “Development Area” is required to mitigate the impacts ofthe increased runoff from the proposed higher density residential land use to the adopted rural planned rate. FMFCD indicated that the “Development Area” may either make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of onsite permanent peak reducing facility in order to match the adopted Rural Master Plan flow rates and eliminate any adverse impacts on the downstream drainage system. FMFCD requested that the grading Engineer contact the District as early as possible to review the proposed site grading for verification and acceptance of design prior to preparing a grading plan. 764
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-41 FMFCD noted that the construction of the Optional Master Plan Facilities and Optional Non-Master Plan Facilities (as shown on Exhibit No. 1 of their letter), will provide permanent drainage service to the portion of the “Development Area” located north of Heirloom Avenue. The construction of the Optional Non-Master Plan Facilities, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, will provide permanent drainage service to the portion of the “Development Area” located south of Heirloom Avenue upon construction of facilities by in Tracts 6292 and 6344. If these optional facilities are not constructed, FMFCD recommends temporary facilities until permanent service is available.
FMFCD noted that the “Development Area” shall not block the historical drainage patterns of existing homes located within the parcels to the east and west side of the “Development Area.” The “Development Area” shall verify to the satisfaction of FMFCD that runoff from these areas has the ability to surface drain to adjacent streets or be collected into PER-3, as shown on Exhibit No. 1.
Either a stub street, channel, or a combination of both shall be provided for those areas, as shown on Exhibit No. 1.
FMFCD noted that the “Development Area” must identify what streets will pass the major storm and provide calculations that show structures will have adequate flood protection. Based on historical drainage patterns, some of the streets located within the “Development Area” may need to be resized or reconfigured (including, but not limited to, streets that include traffic calming curbs) to pass larger event storms. FMFCD approval is not extended to street configuration. A drainage report indicating the path of the major storm flow and calculations confirming there is adequate protection of finished floors will be necessary.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. 765
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
3.14.4 SOLID WASTE
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City Solid Waste Division coordinates the collection and disposal of solid waste generated by residential and commercial customers located within the City of Clovis. Private vendors, under City contract, collect waste from select commercial customers and recyclables and yard wastes from residential customers. (City of Clovis, 2014).
The City Solid Waste Division conducts all operations necessary to landfill City refuse in accordance with county, state, and federal requirements. The Clovis landfill is an active Class III landfill which accepts municipal solid waste that is currently permitted through the year 2066.
Community Cleanup Program provides single-family residents with a semiannual curbside removal of up to six cubic yards of non-hazardous residential waste. Eligible residents are permitted to place waste to be removed in front of the curb to their residence two weeks prior to their scheduled pickup day. The program contributes to an overall cleaner community and discourages illegal dumping. (City of Clovis, 2014).
Waste Collection Services
The City of Clovis Public Utilities Department, and Solid Waste Division, oversee solid waste collection services for the Clovis area. Recycling and greenwaste collection in the City of Clovis is provided by a contract service with Republic Services. The Public Utilities Department works to meet commercial and residential demands in a low cost and environmentally conscious manor. The City of Clovis employs the “single stream” method of recycling in which all recyclable material (other than green waste) goes into the blue Recycling toter. (City of Clovis, 2022).
Waste Disposal Facilities
The City of Clovis is serviced by several landfills, but primarily by the City of Clovis Landfill and the American Avenue Disposal Site. In 2019, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery reports that the Clovis Landfill handled over 63,500 tons of waste, and the American Avenue Disposal Site saw over 11,500 tons of waste. (Cal Recycle, 2019).
CLOVIS LANDFILL
The Clovis Landfill is located at 15679 Auberry Road. The landfill has been in commission for several decades, and is consistently maintained by the City, and by BSK Associates; the City partners with BSK Associates to perform service tests that monitor landfill operations and impacts.
BSK’s environmental and geotechnical engineering services to the City at the Clovis Landfill date back to the mid-1970s with the preparation of a Landfill Master Plan, Design, Drainage, Liners and Seepage Control. Subsequent services included the installation of groundwater and soil gas monitoring network, monitoring identified releases of volatile organic compounds and the Evaluation Monitoring Program (EMP) was developed and implemented to investigate the extent of the problem. The site hydrogeology is complex; groundwater containing VOCs was found in 766
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-43 fractured bedrock, metamorphic rock, decomposed metamorphic rock and alluvium. A creek at the base of the landfill effectively acts as a boundary to horizontal migration of VOCs. The extent of VOCs in groundwater has been defined. (BSK, 2022).
Additional issues confronting the City included excessive levels of methane at the landfill boundary, limited air space (active life) and shortage of cover material. To address these issues, BSK recommended in 1996 that a feasibility study be performed to evaluate the viability of reconstructing the unlined portion of the landfill (comprising about 20 acres with 2.5 million cubic yards of landfill materials). The feasibility study concluded that reconstruction would generate sufficient materials for daily cover needs, add an additional 15 years to the active life, and address landfill releases to groundwater through source elimination. Subsequent monitoring has identified concurrent declines in groundwater VOCs and in landfill gas methane concentrations. The landfill reclamation was completed in 2010 and extended the useful life of the landfill by an estimated 35 years. (BSK, 2022).
BSK currently performs the following Detection and Correction Action Monitoring Program tasks at the Clovis Landfill:
• Monthly sampling of landfill leachate
• Quarterly perimeter screening of methane monitoring wells • Quarterly water level measurements
• Semi-annual groundwater monitoring
• Semi-annual monitoring of pan lysimeters/vadose zone
• Surface water sampling
• Preparation of Semi-Annual Monitoring Reports
• Five-Year Sampling for groundwater, leachate, and surface water • Installation of groundwater monitoring wells
BSK also has provided the following services to Clovis Landfill:
• Evaluation Monitoring Program
• Sampling and Analysis Plan
• Non-Water Release Corrective Action Plan
• Water Release Corrective Action Financial Assurance Plan • Subsurface Drainage Collection Design Consultation and Construction Oversight • Liner Construction Earthwork Observation and Field Testing • Geologic and Hydrogeologic Investigations
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
• Investigations of Subsurface Drainage Discharge Treatment and Reuse • Soil Gas Monitoring Well Destruction
(BSK, 2022).
767
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Solid Waste Generation Rates and Volumes
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) tracks and monitors solid waste generation rates on a per capita basis. Per capita solid waste generation rates and total annual solid waste disposal volumes for the City of Clovis between 2010 and 2020 are shown in Table
3.14-9. As shown, the per capita waste generation rate decreased from 4.1 to 4.0 lbs./person/day over the 10-year (2010-2020) period. In addition, the total annual disposal tonnage in Clovis increased by 14,865 tons over the 2010-to-2020-time span. With the passage of SB 1016, per capita disposal rate is used to determine the diversion progress of a city and not the jurisdictional diversion rates. Therefore, a population increase resulting in the generation of more overall city waste does not affect the jurisdiction’s ability to meet its waste goals.
TABLE 3.14-9: SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATES
YEAR
WASTE GENERATION RATE
(LBS./PERSON/DAY) POPULATION
TOTAL DISPOSAL TONNAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
2010 4.10 95,480.00 71,202.74
2011 3.40 97,218.00 60,354.45
2012 3.30 98,611.00 60,132.17
2013 3.00 99,983.00 53,954.32
2014 3.20 102,188.00 59,098.66
2015 3.50 104,339.00 66,168.03
2016 3.70 108,109.00 73,642.65
2017 3.70 110,532.00 74,994.56
2018 3.90 113,895.00 80,919.57
2019 3.70 117,003.00 77,958.05
2020 4.00 118,741.00 86,067.32
2021 4.40 121,667.00 97,186.92
SOURCE: CAL RECYCLE, 2021
Table 3.14-10 presents the City’s waste disposal rate targets relative to the actual rates achieved on a per capita basis. It is noted that the City is surpassing waste generation rate targets for over a decade. In accordance with AB 939, which required municipalities to aggressively pursue Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) source reduction and recycling, the City continues to meet and exceed all AB 939 goals. The various solid waste management actions adopted by the City include, but are not limited to, recycling and yard waste programs for residents and businesses, public education and public outreach awareness events, and school recycling and composting. 768
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-45 TABLE 3.14-10: CITY OF CLOVIS WASTE DISPOSAL RATE TARGETS (POUNDS PER PERSON/DAY) YEAR
POPULATION EMPLOYMENT
TARGET ACTUAL TARGET ACTUAL
2010 4.7 4.10 15.5 15.80
2011 4.7 3.40 15.5 12.30
2012 4.7 3.30 15.5 12.30
2013 4.7 3.00 15.5 10.90
2014 4.7 3.20 15.5 10.40
2015 4.7 3.50 15.5 11.40
2016 4.7 3.70 15.5 12.10
2017 4.7 3.70 15.5 11.90
2018 4.7 3.90 15.5 12.90
2019 4.7 3.70 15.5 12.00
2020 4.7 4.00 15.5 13.20
2021 4.7 4.40 15.5 15.10
SOURCE: CAL RECYCLE, 2021.
Landfill Capacity
As stated, solid waste from Clovis is primarily landfilled at the City of Clovis Landfill. Clovis Landfill is currently permitted to accept no more than 2,000 tons per day. The allotted disposal area is 76.3 acres, and it is designed to hold 7.8 million cubic yards of inert or designated wastes. The remaining capacity is 7.74 million cubic yards. At that time the capacity is reached, the City can utilize other landfills and recycling facilities within the greater Fresno-Clovis area. Other landfills used in the region include Fairmead, Avenal, Rice Road Recycle and Jefferson Avenue Station, among others. All landfills in the region are summarized in Table 3.14-11 below. Table 3.14-12 summarizes the City of Clovis’ disposal rate targets, as identified by Cal Recycle.
TABLE 3.14-11: CITY OF CLOVIS LANDFILL SUMMARY
LANDFILL LOCATION
MAXIMUM DAILY
THROUGHPUT
(TONS/DAY)
REMAINING CAPACITY
(CUBIC YARDS)
ANTICIPATED
CLOSURE DATE
Clovis Landfill Clovis 2,000 7.74 million 2066
American Avenue
Disposal Site Kerman 2,200 29.39 million 2031
Fairmead Madera 1,100 5.55 million 2028
Avenal Regional
Landfill Avenal 6,000 28.9 million 2056
Rice Road Recycling
& Transfer Station Fresno 400 -- --
Jefferson Avenue
Transfer Station Fresno 1,250 -- --
SOURCE: CAL RECYCLE, 2022B.
769
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
REGULATORY SETTING
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to address the huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide. After several amendments, the current Act governs the management of solid and hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (USTs). RCRA was an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. RCRA has been amended several times, most significantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA is a combination of the first solid waste statutes and all subsequent amendments.
RCRA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate waste management activities. RCRA authorizes states to develop and enforce their own waste management programs, in lieu of the Federal program, if a state's waste management program is substantially equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program.
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939 and SB 1322) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939 and SB 1322) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to its Solid Waste Management Plan that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The purpose of AB 939 and SB 1322 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” The term “integrated waste management” refers to the use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and effectively handle the municipal solid waste stream with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment. The Act has established a waste management hierarchy, as follows: Source Reduction; Recycling; Composting; Transformation; and Disposal.
California Integrated Waste Management Board Model Ordinance Subsequent to the Integrated Waste Management Act, additional legislation was passed to assist local jurisdictions in accomplishing the goals of AB 939. The California Solid Waste Re-use and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (§42900-42911 of the Public Resources Code) directs the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to draft a “model ordinance” relating to adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The model ordinance requires that any new development project, for which an application is submitted on or after September 1, 1994, include “adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials.” For subdivisions of single-family detached homes, recycling areas are required to serve only the needs of the homes within that subdivision.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
CALGreen requires the diversion of at least 50 percent of the construction waste generated during most new construction projects (CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408) and some additions and alterations to nonresidential building projects.
770
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-47 California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB 341)
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California.
Beginning on July 1, 2012, businesses have been required to recycle, and each jurisdiction has implemented programs that include education, outreach, and monitoring. Jurisdictions were required to start reporting on their 2012 Electronic Annual Report (due August 1, 2013) on their initial education, outreach, and monitoring efforts, and, if applicable, on any enforcement activities or exemptions implemented by the jurisdiction.
In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020. This is not written as a 75 percent diversion mandate for each jurisdiction. The 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still stands for cities, counties, and State agencies (including community colleges) under AB 939. CalRecycle continues to evaluate program implementation as it has in the past through the Annual Report review process for entities subject to either AB 939.
Assembly Bill 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (please note, however, that multi-family dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). Organic waste (also referred to as organics) means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. This law phases in the mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time, while also offering an exemption process for rural counties. In particular, the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.
Starting on January 1, 2019, businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services. If CalRecycle determines that the statewide disposal of organic waste in 2020 has not been reduced by 50 percent of the level of disposal during 2014, the organic recycling requirements on businesses will expand to cover businesses that generate 2 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week. Additionally, certain exemptions may no longer be available if this target is not met. 771
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North SB 1374 (Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion) Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374), Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, requires that jurisdictions summarize their progress realized in diverting construction and demolition waste from the waste stream in their annual AB 939 reports. SB 1374 required the CIWMB to adopt a model construction and demolition ordinance for voluntary implementation by local jurisdictions.
AB 2176 (Montanez, Chapter 879, Statues of 2004)
This law requires the largest venue facilities and events (as defined) in each city and county to plan and implement solid waste diversion programs, and annually report the progress of those upon the request of their local government. In turn, local jurisdictions must report to the CIWMB waste diversion information for the top 10 percent of venues and events by waste generation.
A large event is defined as:
1. Serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation (both people attending the event and those working at it—including volunteers—are included in this number); and
2. Charges an admission price or is run by a local agency.
The bill specifically includes public, nonprofit, or privately owned parks, parking lots, golf courses, street systems, or other open space when being used for an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market in addition to events that meet both of the above.
A large venue is defined as:
• A permanent facility that annually seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation (both people attending the event and those working at it—including volunteers too—are included in this number).
Venues include, but are not limited to airports, amphitheaters, amusement parks, aquariums, arenas, conference or civic centers, fairgrounds, museums, halls, horse tracks, performing arts centers, racetracks, stadiums, theaters, zoos, and other public attraction facilities.
Senate Bill 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reductions
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1383, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) in various sectors of California’s economy. The bill codifies the California Air Resources Board’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, established pursuant to SB 605, in order to achieve reductions in the statewide emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. Actions to reduce short-lived climate pollutants are essential to address the many impacts of climate change on human health, especially in California’s most at-risk communities, and on the environment. 772
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-49 As it pertains to solid waste, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.
City of Clovis General Plan
Policies: Community Facilities Element
• Policy 2.1 Minimize landfill disposal of solid waste. Promote solid waste source reduction, reuse, and recycling; composting; and the environmentally-safe transformation of wastes. • Policy 2.2 Waste diversion rate. Meet the state’s current and future waste diversion goals through the city’s recycling and diversion programs.
• Policy 2.3 Expanded recycling. Increase recycling by commercial, industrial, and multifamily generators.
• Policy 2.4 Green and household hazardous materials waste. Encourage citywide participation in green waste reduction and household hazardous waste disposal programs. • Policy 2.5 Clovis landfill. Maintain at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity. • Policy 2.6 Solid waste facility encroachment. Protect existing or planned solid waste facilities from encroachment by incompatible land uses that may be allowed through discretionary land use permits or changes in land use or zoning designations.
Clovis Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 3.10 Development Impact Fees, the purpose of this chapter is to establish a uniform set of procedures applicable to AB 1600 development impact fees that are adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and the Municipal Code. These procedures are intended to apply to all AB 1600 development impact fees adopted by the City regardless of whether there is an existing similar provision in the applicable chapter or section of the Municipal Code establishing the fee. If there is a conflict between this chapter and an existing similar provision in the applicable chapter or section of the Municipal Code establishing the fee, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
The Municipal Code regulates garbage and trash operations through Chapter 6.3, Garbage and Rubbish. This Chapter allows the City monitor and regulate all garbage, rubbish, greenwaste, and recyclables, the containers the materials are collected in, and the collection process itself. This Chapter establishes collection and collection points (Chapter 6.3.06) and collection rates (Chapter
6.3.08). Chapter 6.3.1, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris, and Chapter
6.3.2, Mandatory Organic Waste and Disposal Reduction Regulations, are also contained in this Title, and further authorize the City to maintain public services. 773
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it will:
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; and/or
• Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-6: The proposed Project has the potential to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant) As previously described, permitted maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10‐AA‐ 0004) is 2,000 tons per day. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 7.8 million cubic yards, of which, 7.74 million cubic yards remain. This landfill has an expected cease operation date in the year 2066. Additionally, the American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. As noted previously, the vast majority of waste disposed from the City of Clovis went to Clovis Landfill.
The City already utilizes the American Avenue Disposal Site, Avenal Regional Landfill, and Fairmead Solid Waste Disposal Site; in 2019 Clovis disposed of 11,586 tons to the American site, 358 tons to the Avenal site and 1,956 tons to the Fairmead site. (Cal Recycle, 2022C, D, E).
The Avenal Regional Landfill has the furthest operation date; the landfill is expected to operate until March of 2056. Avenal has a remaining capacity of 28,900,000 cubic yards, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 6,000 tons per day.
New residential land uses in the Development Area of the Project site would increase the amount of solid waste generated by residents. The increase in growth and development as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project could result in an increase of solid waste to transfer stations and landfills, and could contribute to an increased demand for solid waste services throughout the City. Solid waste generated by the proposed Project was estimated based on CalRecycle generation rate estimates by use. Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day1
. It is estimated that the proposed 605
residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid 1 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs./household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
774
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-51 waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.7 tons per day. This equates to roughly
0.185 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2066 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
775
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
3.14.5 ENERGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electrical service to the City of Clovis, its sphere of influence, and Fresno County. Electrical service is supplied by underground and overhead lines routed through three substations in the greater Clovis area. Telecommunications and phone services are provided by AT&T, and cable services are provided by Comcast. The hierarchy of establishing electrical power lines from generation stations to customers is as follows: transmission distribution; subtransmission; and service. PG&E provides gas to customers through plastic and steel underground lines. The project site will not provide natural gas to the site. Residents not serviced by PG&E use propane fuel (City of Clovis, 2014).
REGULATORY SETTING
California Electrical Code
The California Electrical Code is codified in Title 24, CCR, Part 3. The Electrical Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, electrical materials, electrical wiring, overcurrent protection, grounding, and installation.
City of Clovis Municipal Code
Title 7, Public Works, of the Clovis Municipal Code contains Chapter 7.3, Underground Utility Districts, and Chapter 7.5, Underground Wiring. Chapter 7.3 regulates underground utility districts for the purposes of public necessity, health, safety, and welfare. Chapter 7.5 states that all utility facilities (including, but not limited to, electrical, communication and cable television lines) located within the boundaries of a development project property or to be installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any development project shall be placed underground; and that the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to make the necessary arrangements with the serving utility owner for the installation of an underground system, owned and operated by the utility owner. The developer shall submit satisfactory evidence thereof prior to the acceptance and approval of the development project.
The City officially adopts the California Electrical Code, and subsequent amendments, in Chapter 8.2, Electrical Code.
Chapter 9.42 Wireless telecommunications facilities, provides regulations regarding the location and design of wireless communications facilities, and intends to ensure that the installation of wireless communication facilities will not be detrimental to the City’s public health, safety, or welfare. It is the intention of this chapter to treat wireless communications facilities, including antennas, in the same way that other mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioners) are treated, and to require proper screening and architectural compatibility.
776
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
UTILITIES 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report –Shepherd North 3.14-53 City of Clovis General Plan
Policies: Public Services & Utilities Element
• Policy 1.1 New Development. New development shall pay its fair share of public facility and infrastructure improvements.
Policies: Open Space & Conservation Element
• Policy 3.5 Energy and water conservation. Encourage new development and substantial rehabilitation projects to exceed energy and water conservation and reduction standards set in the California Building Code.
• Policy 3.6 Renewable Energy. Promote the use of renewable and sustainable energy sources to serve public and private sector development.
• Policy 3.7 Construction and design. Encourage new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project may have a significant impact on the environment associated with Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-7: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new electrical, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant)
Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, including the installation of the proposed electrical improvements in the roadway rights-of-way to serve the proposed development, are analyzed throughout this EIR under each 777
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
3.14 UTILITIES
3.14-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North environmental topical area. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact. 778
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate a project's effects in relationship to broader changes occurring, or that are foreseeable to occur, in the surrounding environment. Accordingly, this chapter presents a discussion of CEQAmandated analysis for cumulative impacts, significant irreversible effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed Project.
4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the proposed Project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. A cumulative impact occurs from:
…the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis:
1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 779
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.
Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.
CUMULATIVE SETTING
The cumulative setting uses growth projections listed in the City of Clovis Municipal Services Review (2019), and State of California Department of Finance population forecast statistics. Table 4.0-1 shows growth projections.
TABLE 4.0-1: GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CALENDAR
YEAR
ESTIMATED POPULATION
(CLOVIS)
ESTIMATED POPULATION
(FRESNO COUNTY)
ESTIMATED POPULATION
(CALIFORNIA)
2025 136,350 1,053,955 40,808,001
2030 145,050 1,096,638 41,860,549
2035 153,490 1,1235,837 42,718,403
2040 161,580 1,170,525 43,353,414
SOURCES: FRESNO LAFCO – CITY OF CLOVIS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE (2019), STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE – POPULATION FORECAST PROJECTIONS (2020).
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
Cumulative settings are identified under each cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative settings vary because the area that the impact may affect is different. For example, noise impacts generally only impact the local surrounding area because noise travels a relatively short distance, while air quality impacts affect the whole air basin as wind currents control air flow and are not generally affected by natural or manmade barriers which would affect noise. Cumulative Project impacts are addressed and summarized below.
Method of Analysis
Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered separately, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. State CEQA Guidelines 15130 requires a reasonable analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, which are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The cumulative impact that results from several closely related projects is: the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 15355[b]). Cumulative impact analysis may be less detailed than the analysis of the project's individual effects (State CEQA Guidelines 15130[b]). 780
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-3 There are two approaches to identifying cumulative projects and the associated impacts. The list approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The projection approach uses a summary of projections in adopted General Plans or related planning documents to identify potential cumulative impacts. This EIR uses the projection approach for the cumulative analysis and considers the development anticipated to occur upon buildout of the various General Plans in the area.
Project Assumptions
The proposed Project’s contribution to environmental impacts under cumulative conditions is based on full buildout of the Project site. See Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a complete description of the proposed Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Some cumulative impacts for issue areas are not quantifiable and are therefore discussed in general terms as they pertain to development patterns in the surrounding region. Exceptions to this are traffic, utilities, noise and air quality (the latter two of which are associated with traffic volumes), which may be quantified by estimating future traffic patterns, pollutant emitters, etc. and determining the combined effects that may result. In consideration of the cumulative scenario described above, the proposed Project may result in the following cumulative impacts.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for aesthetics is the City of Clovis and surrounding areas of Fresno County.
Impact 4.1: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region (Less than Significant and less than Cumulatively Considerable) As described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, development of the proposed Project would involve the annexation of 77 acres (Development Area) into the City of Clovis to develop up to 605 single family detached units, open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres including, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and associated roadway improvements.
In order to reduce the visual impacts of the development, development within the Project site is required to be consistent with the General Plan and the Clovis Zoning Ordinance, which includes design standards. The design standards will ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site.
These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining an aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding uses.
The loss of the visual appearance of the agricultural land on the site will change the visual character of the Project site in perpetuity, which some people are expected to view as a loss of a visually attractive amenity. Compliance with the requirements within the General Plan and Zoning Code 781
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and the change of agricultural land to a landscaped subdivision is not necessarily a degrading of visual character. The General Plan EIR finds that new development would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan for Clovis and the surrounding jurisdictions could result in changes to the visual character and quality of the City of Clovis through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities.
Development of the proposed Project, in addition to other future projects in the area, would change the existing visual and scenic qualities of the City. However, the City of Clovis has adopted specific landscape and design standards to enhance the visual appearance of the Project site and adjacent areas. As such, this is a less than significant cumulative impact. As such, impacts relative to degradation of visual character would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4.2: Cumulative Damage to Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project site. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in the City of Clovis. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the City is State Route 168, which is located in Fresno County northeast of the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis and the Project site are not visible from this roadway segment. Additionally, there are no “eligible” highway segments in the Project vicinity that may be included in the State Scenic Highway system. As such, this is a less than significant cumulative impact. As such, impacts relative to scenic resources would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution and no mitigation is required.
Impact 4.3: Cumulative Impact on Light and Glare (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light and glare impacts to ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.
Specifically, the Clovis Development Code states that direct glare shall not be permitted and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding requirements. Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting. While implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare, the impacts would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs.
Overall, the proposed Project would introduce new sources of daytime and nighttime lighting within the Project site that do not currently exist. However, it is noted there are no specific features within the proposed Project that would create unusual light and glare. Light sources from the proposed Project can have an adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, light sources can create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of a lighting plan that includes 782
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-5 photometrics of the lighting. Any new lighting associated with development of the proposed Project would be pedestrian-scale lighting and the fixtures would be consistent with the style and technical specifications approved by the City, including compliance with the City’s light and glare regulations under Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code, which requires that light be shielded so that light does not spill onto adjacent properties. The City’s existing requirements require a lighting plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval for the improvement plans, as well as for the building plans. All proposed outdoor lighting is required to meet applicable City standards regulating outdoor lighting, including 9.22.050 Exterior light and glare of the City’s Development code, in order to minimize any impacts resulting from outdoor lighting on adjacent properties.
Implementation of the existing City standards would reduce potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level.
Future projects within Clovis and Fresno County would be subject to the light and glare standards established by the individual jurisdictions. These regulations are designed to minimize potential light and glare impacts of new development. Implementation of these regulations would ensure that future projects minimize their potential cumulative light and glare impacts resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to nighttime lighting and daytime glare would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for agriculture and forest resources is all of Fresno County. According to the Department of Conservation, the total acreage of crop land in the county is approximately 1,355,142 acres. The gross value of agricultural production in Fresno County for 2021 was $8,085,567,000 which represents an increase of $117,167,000 or 1.47% above the previous year's revised total of $7,968,400,000.
Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources(Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. However, as described in Section 3.2, development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately
63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation on the June 2020 Important Farmlands Map and as shown on Figure 3.2-1, to nonagricultural use. After looking at site-specific characteristics more closely for the Project site, it is noteworthy that the Department of Conservation’s designations do not accurately and fully consider site specific characteristics such as the existence of a hardpan within the upper horizon of the soil profile, the project size, surrounding urban uses, lack of agricultural protection zones in the zone of influence, lack of water resources, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations due to other factors. To reconcile this inaccuracy and analyze the site-specific characteristics more fully, the Clovis General Plan calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to evaluate the significance of the agricultural conversion. It is noted that the LESA model was developed by the Department of Conservation, which is the same agency that published the 2020 Important Farmland’s Map. 783
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was utilized to determine the proposed Project’s potential impact on agricultural resources. The LESA scoring for the proposed Project is documented on the LESA scoring sheets in Appendix B. The proposed Project has a final LESA score of 50.50, which is considered to be a significant impact only if the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment sub scores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. The proposed Project has a sub score of 32.50 for the Land Evaluation and a sub score of 18.0 for the Site Assessment, which means the conversion of the land on the Project site is not considered significant according to the California Department of Conservation’s established thresholds.
After evaluating the site-specific soil characteristics, project size, surrounding uses, agricultural protection zones, water resources availability, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations utilizing the LESA Model, it was determined that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not a significant impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic and no mitigation is required. As such, impacts to agricultural resources would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
AIR QUALITY
The cumulative setting for air quality impacts is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which consists of eight counties, stretching from Kern County in the south to San Joaquin County in the north. The SJVAB is bounded by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.
Impact 4.5: Cumulative Impact on the Region's Air Quality (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Under buildout conditions in Fresno County, the SJVAB would continue to experience increases in criteria pollutants and efforts to improve air quality throughout the basin would be hindered. As described in Section 3.3, Fresno County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Fresno County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 3.3-2 in Section 3.3 presents the state and national attainment status for Fresno County.
As discussed under Impact 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 15 tons per year PM10, and 15 tons per year PM2.5.
As shown in Table 3.3-6, operational emissions would not exceed the SJVACPD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Additionally, as shown in Table 3.3-7, construction emissions would not exceed the SJVACPD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. As such, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
784
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for biological resources includes the Project site and the greater Fresno County region. Development associated with implementation of the local General Plan(s) would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural and agricultural lands in Fresno County, including the Project site. Cumulative development would result in the conversion of existing habitat to urban uses. The local General Plan(s), in addition to regional, State and federal regulations, includes policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with General Plan buildout.
Impact 4.6: Cumulative Loss of Biological Resources Including Habitats and Special Status Species (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan(s) within Fresno County will result in impacts to biological resources in the cumulative area through new and existing development. The General Plan(s) includes policies that are designed to minimize impacts to the extent feasible.
As described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, construction in the Project site has the potential to result in impacts to special-status species in the region. Although there has been no documented sighting within the immediate area in, or near the Project site, the Project site provides potential habitat for several species, including those discussed in Section 3.4.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires measures to avoid or minimize impacts on other protected bird species that may occur on the site. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires that, prior to grading, the Project applicant is required to conduct a survey of the area to be graded for bat roosts, and if present, the Project applicant shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status bats.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 and Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 in Section 3.4 would reduce potentially cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. As such, impacts to biological resources would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
The geography of cultural resources impact can be defined by region, by political subdivision or by the geography of the cultural resources present in an area, where sufficient inventory data is available to define it. The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes all of the Fresno County.
There are extensive cultural sites located in the region.
Impact 4.7: Cumulative Impacts on Known and Undiscovered Cultural and Tribal Resources (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Cumulative development anticipated in the City of Clovis, including growth projected by adopted future projects, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Resources, no historic period resources were previously recorded in the Development Area.
785
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Any previously unknown cultural resources which may be discovered during development of the proposed Project would be required to be preserved, either through preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. With implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 3.5, the proposed Project is not anticipated to considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources in the region.
All future projects in the regional vicinity would be subject to their respective General Plans (e.g.
City of Clovis, and Fresno County), each of which have policies and measures that are designed to ensure protection of undiscovered cultural resources. In addition, all discretionary projects in these jurisdictions would require environmental review per regulations established in CEQA. development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to cultural resources would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts related to geology and soils are not inherently cumulative. Geology and soils concerns are related to risks, hazards or development constraints that are largely site-specific. However, seismic hazards are regional, and management of seismic hazards is vested with the local planning and building authority. For these reasons, the potential for cumulative geology and soils impacts are considered in the context of the City of Clovis and vicinity.
Impact 4.8: Cumulative Impact on Geologic and Soils Resources (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As discussed in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils, development of the proposed Project has limited potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, mitigation measures provided in Section 3.6 ensure this impact will be less than significant. While the City is not within an area known for its seismic activity, there will always be a potential for groundshaking caused by seismic activity anywhere in California, including the Project site. Seismic activity could come from a known active fault s in the region. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. Additionally, the City of Clovis has incorporated numerous policies relative to seismicity to ensure the health and safety of all people. Design in accordance with these standards and policies would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level.
Geologic and soils impacts tend to be site-specific and Project-specific. With the mitigation measures presented in Section 3.6, development of the proposed Project would not result in increased risks or hazards related to geologic conditions in the cumulative setting area, nor would it result in any off-site or indirect impacts. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to geologic and soil resources would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution. 786
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-9
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
The cumulative setting for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts for this analysis is Fresno County, which is the boundary for the California Air Resources Board’s regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Greenhouse gas emissions from a single Project will not cause global climate change; however, greenhouse gas emission from multiple projects throughout a region or state could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change.
In California, there has been extensive legislation passed with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The legislative goals are as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.
As presented in the table, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 776.8 MT CO2e per year. As shown in the following table, the annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 5,071 MT CO2e.
Consistent with the population estimate provided by LSA in the Transportation Impact Analysis for the Project, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,097 residents during the Project’s operational phase.1 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 2.42 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is below the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in the 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized2
, would equal approximately emissions 25.9 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.01 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 2.43 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.
Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution. 1 This estimate is based on the estimate provided by LSA in their Transportation Impact Analysis (LSA, 2023). 2 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years. 787
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Impact 4.10: Cumulative Impact on the Inefficient, Wasteful, or Unnecessary Use of Energy Resources (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources.
The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to energy resources would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative hazards and human health impacts Fresno County, including all cumulative growth therein, as represented by full implementation of each respective General Plan (i.e., Clovis and Fresno County). As discussed in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, development of the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic with the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 3.8.
Impact 4.11: Cumulative Impact Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The proposed Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the region, would include areas designated for a variety of uses as defined by the applicable General Plan. Cumulative development would include continued operation of, or development of, new facilities as allowed under each land use designation. New development would inevitably increase the use of hazardous 788
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-11 materials within the region, resulting in potential health and safety effects related to hazardous materials use. For the most part, potential impacts associated with new and future development would be confined to commercial and industrial areas and would not involve the use of hazardous substances in large quantities or that would be particularly hazardous. Incidents, if any, would typically be site specific and would involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. Associated health and safety risks would generally be limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials and would not combine with similar effects elsewhere (i.e., construction workers). Hazard-related impacts tend to be site-specific and Projectspecific. The Project site is not associated with any existing hazardous materials spills; however, there are numerous areas throughout the County where hazardous conditions are present.
Development of the proposed Project would not result in significant increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting area, nor would it result in any significant off-site or indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of on-site hazards associated with the use of onsite hazardous materials. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potential cumulative issues associated with surface waters can be addressed on a watershed basis, or in the case of groundwater, in the context of a groundwater basin. Because water resources are highly interconnected, the cumulative setting is based on Fresno County, which is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region, which covers about 16,800 square miles and includes all of Kings and Tulare counties and most of Fresno and Kern counties. Cumulative development in this region, including the proposed Project, would impact the water quality and hydrological features of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Clovis is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. The Kings Subbasin is bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River, on the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins, the south by the Kings River South Fork and the Empire West Side Irrigation District, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada foothills. Any matter that may affect water quality draining from the Project site will eventually end up in the Delta or within the groundwater basin.
Impact 4.12: Cumulative Increases in Peak Stormwater Runoff from the Project site (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the Project site, which could increase peak stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream on the Project site. However, the proposed Project includes an extensive system of on-site stormwater collection facilities to accommodate the increased stormwater flows that would originate in the Project site.
The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment, and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control 789
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Board Requirements (SWRCB), City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of the FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. As such, impacts related to stormwater runoff would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
Impact 4.13: Cumulative Impacts Related to Degradation of Water Quality (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The San Joaquin River is specifically listed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) as an impaired water body due to mercury under the Clean Water Act. Mercury is a sediment-based pollutant that can be released into the water column during various in-water construction activities (e.g., construction of the storm drain outfall) that may disturb the sediment and cause turbidity. As a result, such activities may increase the likelihood of mercury exposure to the public and wildlife that utilize the San Joaquin River.
In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, the Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the RWQCB as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB.
The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project (all phases) requires discharge of stormwater into the on-site detention basins, which would ultimately flow into the FMFCD system.
The discharge of stormwater must be treated through BMPs prior to its discharge. The standards and regulations contained above would ensure that BMPs are implemented to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site into the FMFCD system. Storm water drainage is managed through the implementation of BMPs to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce pollutants. The City requires reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain system 790
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-13 or watercourses. The management of water quality through BMPs is intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards.
The use of BMPs is intended to treat runoff close to the source during the construction and longterm operational phase of the Project to reduce stormwater quality impacts. The required erosion control measures are existing regulatory requirements. Development of proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. As such, impacts related to water quality would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
Impact 4.14: Cumulative Impacts Related to Degradation of Groundwater Supply or Recharge (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types.
In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement, significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.
The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. As indicated in the Geotechnical Report (Krazan & Associates, 2019), cemented silty sand and silty sand with trace clay, locally referred to as "hardpan," were encountered in several of the borings at the Project site. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition. Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
The Project site is located in the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. As previously stated, the Kings Subbasin is recharged by water from sources including streams, percolation of rainfall and irrigation water, inflow from other groundwater basins, and intentional recharge at numerous facilities.
Intentional recharge is conducted in recharge ponds and on some farm fields with compensation to landowners. The hardpan encountered on the Project site generally does not allow for a high infiltration rate. While the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site when compared to existing conditions, it is not anticipated that the proposed development would interfere with groundwater recharge, as much of the groundwater recharge in the basin occurs in the sand and gravels along the San Joaquin River from the Sierra Nevada snowmelt flowing downstream.
Water Supply, including any new demand on groundwater, is fully discussed in Section 3.14 Utilities and Services Systems. The Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan GSP has been accepted and approved to be in compliance by the Department of Water Resources. The proposed Project does not conflict with this GSP.
791
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North For the reasons mentioned above, the proposed Project would not cause the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or conflict with the GSP. As such, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. As such, impacts related to groundwater supply or recharge would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
Impact 4.15: Cumulative Impacts Related to Flooding (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As shown on Figure 3.9-2, the majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone.
The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic.
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
The cumulative setting for land use and population impacts is the City of Clovis.
Impact 4.16: Cumulative Impact on Communities and Local Land Uses (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative land use impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site- and Project-specific. As shown in Table 3.10-3, the Project is consistent with the City’s existing General Plan policies and would not conflict with policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. When land uses are not consistent with a General Plan, there are two courses of action: 1) the uses are not allowed due to the inconsistency, or 2) the land uses are changed through an amendment to the General Plan to create consistency. The proposed Project will require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to adjust the land uses from Rural Residential (RR) to Medium High Density (MH) for the Development Area to accommodate the proposed development density. The proposed General Plan land use designations for the Project site is shown on Figure 2.0-8 of Chapter 2.0: Project Description. 792
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-15 Approval of the General Plan amendment would ensure that the proposed Project would be substantially consistent with the Clovis General Plan land use requirements.
Approval of the General Plan amendment would ensure that the proposed Project would be substantially consistent with the Clovis General Plan land use requirements and would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to the Clovis General Plan.
The Clovis Zoning Code implements the General Plan. The Project site is currently within the jurisdiction of Fresno County. The Fresno LAFCo will require the Project site to be pre-zoned by the City of Clovis in conjunction with the proposed annexation. The pre-zoning request is for the R-1- PRD zoning designations over these lots.
• Single-Family Planned Residential Development Zoning (R-1-PRD). This designation identifies areas appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached single-family structures on small lots. The allowable density range is 4.1 to 15.0 units per acre, with the level of density determined by compliance with performance standards. The R-1-PRD district required a planned development permit. The R-1-PRD district is consistent with the Medium and Medium-High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
The proposed City of Clovis zoning for the Project site is shown on Figure 2.0-9.
The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Clovis. These proposed zone changes would ensure that zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan designations within the Project site (Development Area). The zoning ordinance establishes permitted uses, development densities and intensities, and development standards through the R-1-PRD zone district and planned development permit process to ensure that public health, safety, and general welfare are protected, consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Code. All existing City development standards and zoning requirements for the proposed zoning are applicable to any activities on the Project site. The City will review each component of the proposed Project as plans (improvement plans, building plans, site plans, etc.) are submitted for final approval to ensure that they are consistent with the City’s Zoning ordinance. Approval of the pre-zoning will ensure that the proposed Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code and will have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to the Clovis General Plan.
In addition, the Fresno LAFCo policies discussed in Chapter 3.10: Land Use and Population are intended to ensure orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations.
Ultimately, LAFCo will determine whether the proposed annexation would first require an update to the Clovis Municipal Service Review in order to approve the annexation. This LAFCo policy was not specifically adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, rather it is intended to ensure orderly and logical reorganization to local jurisdiction boundaries, including annexations. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts. As such, development of the proposed Project will have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic. 793
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Impact 4.17: Cumulative Impacts on Population and Housing (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As described in Section 3.10, the Development Area primarily contains farmland. Three residential dwellings and a warehouse were removed in approximately 2020. The majority of the Development Area is in active agricultural use. Development of the Project would add up to 605 residential units.
Therefore, because no housing is located in the Development Area, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing.
Using the most recent Department of Finance (2022) estimate for the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the City of Clovis of 2.81, the addition of up to 605 housing units could increase the population of the City by an estimated 1,700 persons.
The proposed Project will require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to adjust the land uses from Rural Residential (RR) to Medium High Density (MH) for the Development Area to accommodate the proposed development density.
• Medium High Density (MH). This designation identifies areas appropriate small lot single family detached homes, townhouses, duplexes, and apartments. The allowable density range is 7.1 to 15.0 units per acre.
While the proposed Project will result in growth, it is not anticipated to significantly induce growth. development of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
As such, impacts related to population and housing would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
NOISE
The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with the proposed Project consists of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the Project or surrounding uses. Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context.
Impact 4.18: Cumulative Exposure of Existing and Future Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Increased Noise Resulting from Cumulative Development (Less than Significant with Mitigation and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
NOISE IMPACTS TO ON-SITE RECEPTORS DUE TO PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC The Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line. Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses, but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan.
794
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-17 To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls.
These walls must be at least 4.2 lbs/ft2
. Any unshielded residential glass facades within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows, which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
OPERATIONAL NOISE INCREASES
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise sources which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses (a.k.a. neighborhood traffic, yard equipment, truck deliveries, garbage collected, etc.). Proposed neighborhood parks are located internal to the Project site and would not impact off-site residential uses.
EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE AT PROPOSED USES
The Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line. Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan. Thus, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-3. Furthermore, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, any unshielded residential glass facades within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 and Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS AT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES
Modern construction typically provides a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction with windows closed. Therefore, sensitive receptors exposed to exterior noise of 70 dB Ldn, or less, will typically comply with the City of Clovis 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard. Additional noise reduction measures, such as acoustically-rated windows, are generally required for exterior noise levels exceeding 70 dB Ldn.
As mentioned before, the Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line. Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. Based upon a 795
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to be approximately 44 dB Ldn. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase. The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax. This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., Fowler Ave., and East Lexington Ave.
Furthermore, noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise. Therefore, with implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
CONCLUSION
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 to 3.11-4, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to construction noise would result a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 through 3.11-4.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Cumulative setting would include all areas covered in the service areas of the Clovis Fire Department (CFD), Clovis Police Department (CPD), the City of Clovis Parks and Recreation Division, the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD), and any other relevant public services. 796
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-19 Impact 4.19: Cumulative Impact on Public Services and Recreation (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Development of the proposed Project would contribute toward an increased demand for public services and facilities within the City of Clovis. It has been determined that the impacts to the CFD, CPD, City of Clovis Parks and Recreation Division, and CUSD, would be less-than-significant. The proposed Project would be subject to all fees that are paid toward the enhancement of public services within the City. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would assist in maintaining existing fire, police, schools, and park services. development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to public services would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Cumulative Conditions analyses for year 2028 and 2046 were performed to identify potential impacts of the Project under Cumulative AM and PM peak hour conditions. The project trip distribution was developed using select zone model runs obtained from the Fresno COG ABM.
Impact 4.20: Under Cumulative conditions, Project development would result in VMT increases that are greater than 87 percent of Baseline conditions (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)
Table 3.13-12 in Section 3.13 presents the existing (2019) Regional and Project VMT per Capita. As shown in Table 3.13-2, the Project VMT per capita is 20.7 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold. Project design features aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of these Project design features may possibly reduce the Project’s VMT. The Project design features can help offset some of the VMT impacts of the Project.
Because the development would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below the established city-wide average under Existing and Cumulative Conditions, even with implementation of Project Design measures that provide mitigating effects, development of the proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 4.21: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, policy or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, or increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The City of Clovis ATP (2022) and City of Clovis General Plan (2014) were reviewed to determine if the proposed Project results in any inconsistencies with adopted transportation related policies.
With recommended improvements described in those chapters, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project trips. Furthermore, in the absence of a fee program 797
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North where the Project has an impact on the roadway network, the Project will pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvements. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, or transit service/facility.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would be less than significant relative to this topic. The Project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to this topic.
UTILITIES
The cumulative setting includes all areas covered in the service areas of the City’s wastewater system, water system, stormwater system, and the solid waste collection and disposal services.
Impact 4.22 Cumulative Impact on Wastewater Utilities (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The proposed Project would increase the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. According to the City’s 2017 Wastewater Master Plan Update, single-family residential uses are estimated to generate 55 gallons per capita per day or 175 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (edu). The Project site includes 605 single-family residential units. Using this rate, the proposed Projects would generate approximately 105,875 gallons per day of wastewater. Occupancy of the proposed Project would be prohibited without sewer allocation. An issuance of sewer allocation from the City’s available capacity would ensure that there would be a final determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Additionally, any planned expansion to the RWTF with a subsequent allocation of capacity to the proposed Project would ensure that there would not be a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is inadequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
The Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility is currently in compliance with the WDR requirements of Order No. 5-2013-0080 NPDES NO. CA00883500. The projected flows of the proposed Project are not expected to exceed the treatment capacity available for treatment. Full buildout of the proposed Project would slightly increase the existing treatment demand at the RWRF. As described above, the City must also periodically review and update their Utility Master Plans, including the Wastewater Master Plan, and as growth continues to occur within the City, the City will identify necessary system upgrades and capacity enhancements to meet growth, prior to the approval of new development. These pre-existing proactive efforts ensure the City would be able to reliably treat the wastewater as the community expands its population up to and through the next plant expansion, including with development of the proposed Project. 798
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-21 The City General Plan designates the Development Area as Rural Residential and therefore anticipated potential development. Given that projected wastewater generation volumes associated with the buildout of the Development Area would not exceed the projected wastewater generation volumes described in the Wastewater Master Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan, a described under Impact 3.14-1. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic.
The wastewater collection and conveyance system that will serve the proposed Project will consist of engineered infrastructure consistent with the City’s existing infrastructure requirements. New wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure needed for the proposed Project will require trenching/excavation of earth, and placement of pipe within the trenches at specific locations, elevations, and gradients. The applicant will refine the wastewater collection/conveyance infrastructure design through the development of improvements plans which undergo review by the Engineering Department to ensure consistency with the City’s engineering standards. This improvement plan process will include full engineering design (i.e. location, depth, slope, etc.) of all conveyance infrastructure as well as a review of new sewer pump stations and new force mains if needed. Ultimately, the sanitary sewer collection system will be an underground collection system installed as per the City of Clovis standards and specifications.
Therefore, the installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The wastewater treatment plant would not require upgrades or improvements in order to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic.
Impact 4.23: Cumulative Impact on Water Utilities (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Project area will be annexed to the City and will require an extension of existing potable and non‐potable systems. The proposed water system will be located within the proposed public utilities easements and be connected to existing City mains and will comply with City Master Plans and standards. The City of Clovis provides water supplies to the City of Clovis. The City has three main water supply sources: groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. The City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Surface water is delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project.
The City’s Water Reuse Facility produces tertiary treated effluent that can be used for agriculture or landscape irrigation.
The proposed Project site will provide an adequate potable and non-potable water distribution systems in strict accordance with City Master Plans and standards. Furthermore, the construction of the new water facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the proposed Project, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the water system and all construction activities within the Development Area of the Project Site, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant 799
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North and unavoidable impacts. The future water infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. The environmental impacts of constructing and operating the new water distribution infrastructure are discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.9, 3.14, and 4.0 of this Draft EIR.
Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Projected Water Demand for the Proposed Project: Water would be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. The Project will receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. According to the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed Project, the proposed Project has an associated Land Use-based Water Demand Factor (WDF of 3.3 AFY/acre associated with Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) based on the City’s UWMP. The projected water demand for the proposed Project is shown in Table 4.0-2, below. The total projected annual potable water demand for the Project is projected to be 255.8 AFY.
TABLE 4.0-2: PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
LAND USE UNIT FACTOR ACREAGE WATER DEMAND (AFY)
Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) 3.3 77.5 255.8
Total -- 77.5 255.8
NOTES: BASED ON LAND USE-BASED WATER DEMAND FACTOR (WDF) OF 0.7 AFY/ACRE. AFY = ACRE-FEET PER YEAR.
SOURCE: TRACT 6205, NORTHWEST SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION AREA. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP, 2022).
As shown in table 4.0-2, the total proposed water demand amounts to approximately 1.6% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table ES-3 of the 2020 UWMP.
This indicates an ability of the City to serve this project in the interim while additional supplies are acquired to accommodate full build-out of the GP.
Projected Water Supply for the Proposed Project: Water demands for the proposed Project will be served using the City’s existing and future portfolio of water supplies. The inclusion of existing and planned future supplies is specifically allowed by the Water Code:
Water Code section 10631(b): Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a).
The applicants for the proposed Project will provide their proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition and delivery of treated potable water supplies to the Project site.
Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610: Water Code section 10910 states:
800
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-23 10910(c)(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
Pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(4) and based on the technical analyses described in the UWMP, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project as shown in table 4.0-2, in addition to existing and planned future uses.
A comparison of the City’s projected potable and raw water supplies and demands is shown in Table
4.0-3, below, for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years. Demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any Normal year between 2020 and 2040. From this analysis, the City’s water demands are not expected to exceed water supplies in Single Dry Years or Multiple Dry Years.
TABLE 4.0-3: SUMMARY OF POTABLE AND RAW WATER DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC
NORMAL, SINGLE DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
HYDROLOGIC CONDITION
SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040
NORMAL YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650 Total Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
SINGLE DRY YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 37,839 43,587 47,233 53,109 Total Water Demand 34,272 37,359 40,957 47,133
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 3,567 6,228 6,276 5,976
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
MULTIPLE DRY YEAR
Multiple
Dry
Year 1
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 46,784 54,607 60,330 68,999 Total Water Demand 36,489 39,422 42,840 48,707
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,294 15,185 17,489 20,292 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 2
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 45,093 52,576 57,958 66,095 Total Water Demand 34,183 36,962 40,200 45,758
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,910 15,614 17,758 20,337 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 3
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 41,895 48,310 52,625 59,717 Total Water Demand 31,346 33,969 37,028 42,277
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 10,550 14,341 15,597 17,440 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
801
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Multiple
Dry
Year 4
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 37,839 43,587 47,233 53,109 Total Water Demand 28,005 30,474 33,353 38,293
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 9,834 13,112 13,881 14,815
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 5
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply 49,743 57,992 64,141 73,716 Total Water Demand 37,825 40,758 44,176 50,043
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 11,918 17,235 19,965 23,674 Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
SOURCE: PROVOST & PRITCHARD, 2021B.
CONCLUSION
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic.
Impact 4.24: Cumulative Impact on Stormwater Facilities (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The proposed Project includes development of a new storm drainage system to serve the proposed uses as described above. The construction of the new on-site stormwater drainage facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Development Area of the Project Site, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the stormwater system, and all construction activities within the Development Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future storm drainage infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. All mitigation measures presented throughout this EIR will be implemented to reduce impacts to the extent practicable. There will not be any significant impacts beyond what is disclosed in the other chapters of this document. In addition to the other mitigation measures presented throughout this document, the following mitigation measure is intended to ensure that the drainage system is designed and constructed to meet the City’s performance standards. The plan will include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to discharge and describes the treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the City’s performance standards. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.14-1, as provided in Section 3.14: Utilities of this EIR, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic.
802
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-25 Impact 4.25: Cumulative Impact on Solid Waste Facilities (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As previously described, permitted maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10‐AA‐ 0004) is 2,000 tons per day. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 7.8 million cubic yards, of which, 7.74 million cubic yards remain. This landfill has an expected cease operation date in the year 2047. Additionally, the American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. As noted previously, the vast majority of landfill disposed from the City of Clovis went to Clovis Landfill.
The City already utilizes the American Avenue Disposal Site, Avenal Regional Landfill, and Fairmead Solid Waste Disposal Site; in 2019 Clovis disposed of 11,586 tons to the American site, 358 tons to the Avenal site and 1,956 tons to the Fairmead site. (Cal Recycle, 2022C, D, E).
The Avenal Regional Landfill has the furthest operation date; the landfill is expected to operate until March of 2056. Avenal has a remaining capacity of 28,900,000 cubic yards, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 6,000 tons per day.
New residential land uses in the Development Area of the Project site would increase the amount of solid waste generated by residents. The increase in growth and development as a result of the development of the proposed Project could result in an increase of solid waste to transfer stations and landfills, and could contribute to an increased demand for solid waste services throughout the City. Solid waste generated by the proposed Project was estimated based on CalRecycle generation rate estimates by use. Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day3
. It is estimated that the proposed 605
residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.4 tons per day. This equates to roughly
0.17 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2047 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact. Thus, impacts related to solid waste facilities would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
Impact 4.26: Cumulative Impact from Electrical, or Telecommunications Facilities (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project 3 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs/household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
803
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, including the installation of the proposed electrical improvements in the roadway rights-of-way to serve the proposed development, are analyzed throughout this EIR under each environmental topical area. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact. Thus, impacts related to solid waste facilities would be a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.
4.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), require that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action, should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
Determining whether the proposed Project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources refers to the loss of physical features within the natural environment, including the conversion of agricultural lands, loss of access to mining reserves, and nonrenewable energy use. The Project site has nonrenewable resources, including biological resources and agricultural resources.
804
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-27 As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, all impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, the proposed Project will minimize the potential for impacts to the nonrenewable resources on the Project site, including biological resources and water resources, to the greatest extent feasible. More detailed and focused discussions of potential impacts to these nonrenewable resources are contained throughout this Draft EIR.
Nonrenewable agricultural resources such as agricultural land, farmland, and agricultural soils, would be converted during the construction and operation of the Project. The City’s General Plan includes a variety of policies that seek to conserve and protect agricultural resources. These include policies that encourage the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands and ensure that urban development near existing agricultural lands will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland were evaluated using the LESA Model and determined to be less than significant.
Irretrievable Commitments/Irreversible Physical Changes Development of the proposed Project would result in irretrievable commitments by introducing development onto the site which is presently undeveloped. The conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would result in an irretrievable loss of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and open space.
A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for development and infrastructure installation associated with development and operation of the proposed Project. Buildout of the Project would require the commitment of a variety of other non-renewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals.
Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the Project. The introduction of new residential and park uses to the Project site will result in an increase energy demand associated with building operations, vehicle travel, equipment operation, and other activities. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the Project will increase consumption of available supplies, including gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy resource demands relate to initial construction, operation, maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the Project site that would occur with development of the proposed Project.
Additionally, development will physically change the environment in terms of aesthetics, air emission, noise, traffic, open space, and natural resources. These physical changes are irreversible after development occurs.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has 805
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North potential environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts are addressed previously in Section 4.1 for each of the environmental topics.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or (3) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. These impacts are discussed below.
Additionally, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4), a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. These impacts are discussed below.
Substantial Adverse Effects on Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) of this Draft EIR fully addresses any impacts that might relate to the reduction of the fish or wildlife habitat, the reduction of fish or wildlife populations, and the reduction or restriction of the range of special-status species as a result of Project development. As described throughout the analysis in this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially reduce the habitat of 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 to the environment. As described in greater detail in Section 3.4 (Biological Resources), any potentially significant impacts related to plant and animal species would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of goals, policies and implementation measures provided in the City’s General Plan as well as through adherence to state and federal regulations. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
4.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project are discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.13, and previously in this chapter (cumulative-level). Refer to those discussions for further details and analysis of the significant and unavoidable impact identified below:
• Impact 3.13-1: Project development would not result in VMT increases that are greater than 87 percent of Baseline conditions;
806
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 4.0-29 • Impact 4.20: Under Cumulative conditions, Project development would result in VMT increases that are greater than 87 percent of Baseline conditions. 807
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS]
4.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This page left intentionally blank.
808
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-1
5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined, but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The principal Project objective is the expansion of the City’s SOI to include the Project site, and the annexation/reorganization, approval and subsequent development of the Development Area.
The quantifiable objectives include the development of up to 605 single-family residential units.
The quantifiable objectives include the development of open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks. The Project objectives also include the installation of new public and private roadways that will provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the Project site and surrounding community areas, and other improvements, including water supply, storm drainage, sewer facilities, and landscaping to serve the residential uses.
The goals of the proposed development are as follows:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis, consistent with policies stated in A Landscape of Choice to modestly increase urban density.
• Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand, consistent with City Requirements as stated in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA).
• Provide infrastructure that meets City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections.
• Establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet City standards. • Expand the City’s Sphere of Influence in order to establish a logical and orderly boundary that promotes the efficient extension of municipal services. 809
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process.
The City of Clovis considered alternative locations early in the public scoping process. The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:
• Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
• Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics such that it would meet the basic Project objectives? The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the Project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Clovis, including the General Plan. The search included a review of land in Clovis that is located within the Sphere of Influence, suitable for development, available for acquisition, and not already approved or pending development. It was found that there are numerous approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in Clovis. These approved and proposed projects are not available for acquisition by the Project applicant and are not considered a feasible alternative for the Project applicant. The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. For these reasons, the City of Clovis determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
Four alternatives to the proposed Project were developed based on input from City staff. The alternatives that are anticipated to be analyzed in the EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Project.
• No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition. • Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 62 acres would be developed with 605 residential units under the medium-high density residential use, 10 acres would be developed with 195 apartments under the high density residential use, and 5 acres would be developed with 108,000 square feet under the neighborhood commercial use. • Reduced Density Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would have a reduced density for the residential uses. Approximately 150 residential units would be developed under the very low-density residential designation. 810
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-3 • Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative: Physically, there is little difference between the proposed Project and this alternative. It is noted, however, that the reduction in the SOI would eliminate the possibility of the Non-Development Area connecting to City services at some point in the future, if desired by those residents.
NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition. It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the Project objectives.
INCREASED DENSITY MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 80 percent of the Development Area (62 acres) would be developed with 605 residential units (9.75 du/ac). This would still fall under the Medium-High Density (MH) 7.1–15.0 du/ac land use category. The remaining 15 acres of the Development Area would be developed with a mix of commercial and higher density residential. The mixed-use area would have 10 acres for High Density (H) 15.1–25.0 du/ac. The alternative assumes 195 apartments constructed at a density of
19.5 du/ac. There would also be 5 acres of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) (Max FAR 0.50). This area would be developed as a neighborhood‐scale shopping facility. The FAR would allow for 108,000 square feet of commercial. It is anticipated that the commercial would include an anchor store such as a small supermarket with a wide range of ancillary uses including banks, restaurants, service businesses, and other related activities are generally found in these planned commercial centers.
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the proposed Project would have a reduced density in the Development Area that would fall under the Very Low Density (VL) 0.6–2.0 du/ac land use. The alternative assumes 150 residential units at approximately 2 du/ac. This use is described as large lot singlefamily residences and appurtenant structures within an identifiable residential neighborhood.
This alternative would include neighborhood parks and all the infrastructure necessary to connect to City services.
REDUCED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the proposed Project would only expand the Sphere of Influence and annex the Developed Area and would exclude the 78-acre Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansion to the north and east of the Development Area. Physically, there is little difference between the proposed Project and this alternative. It is noted, however, that the reduction in the SOI would eliminate that possibility of the Non-Development Area connecting to City services at some point in the future, if desired by those residents.
811
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North
5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative.
NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing state and would not result in increases in daytime glare or nighttime lighting. The visual character of the Project site would not change under this alternative compared to existing conditions.
As described in Section 3.1, the visual character of the Project site would be altered as a result of Project implementation. Implementation of the City’s design standards would ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding uses. The Clovis General Plan EIR concluded that adoption of the General plan, which contemplated urbanization of the lands within the General Plan study area, was a less than significant environmental impact.
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project site. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in the City of Clovis. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the City is State Route 168, which is located in Fresno County northeast of the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis and the Project site are not visible from this roadway segment.
Additionally, there are no “eligible” highway segments in the Project vicinity that may be included in the State Scenic Highway system.
The proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light and glare impacts to ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.
Specifically, the Clovis Development Code states that direct glare shall not be permitted and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding requirements. Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting.
Implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare to a less than significant level.
Overall, the proposed Project would not substantially impact the visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings, damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, or potentially significant new sources of light and glare. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would avoid these less than significant impacts altogether. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
812
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-5 Agricultural Resources
Currently, the majority of the Project site is vacant agricultural land. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation on the June 2020 Important Farmlands Map to nonagricultural use. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was utilized to determine the proposed Project’s potential impact on agricultural resources. The LESA scoring for the proposed Project shows that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not considered significant according to the California Department of Conservation’s established thresholds.
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the urban uses anticipated by the City under the adopted General Plan. There is no immediately adjacent agricultural land that poses a potential for conflict. Development of the proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact on agricultural land. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. It was found that operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the existing rules and regulations would ensure that the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Project site. Residences would not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or high-traffic road, or be within any of the other CARB minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses. Regardless, the proposed Project 813
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North would not have land uses that would generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Project site would not be developed, and there would be no net change in emissions and no potential for a conflict with any adopted plans or policies related to air quality. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The biological analysis showed that there were no special-status invertebrates, or their habitat, observed within the Project site during field surveys and none are expected to be affected by the proposed Project. The Project site also does not contain suitable aquatic or upland habitat for special status reptiles or amphibians known to occur in the region. It was determined during the field survey that the agricultural disturbance on the Project site precludes the existence ofspecialstatus plants, unless agricultural operations were to cease. The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the Federal or State Clean Water Acts. There are no sensitive natural communities within the Project site. The land uses within the Project site would not have any direct disturbance to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to the movement corridor or habitat. The proposed Project is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan.
The proposed Project requires the removal of the pecan orchard within the Development Area.
Pecan trees are fruit trees and are, thus, exempt from the tree removal and replacement requirements.
The Project would result in the removal of an orchard, which is not high-quality nesting or foraging habitat for special-status birds. Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land with low growing crops or grasslands represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the groundnesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB does not provide any records of special status birds on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity.
Nevertheless, birds are highly mobile and can be expected to fly over the Project site at times.
They could use the site for foraging, although it is not high-quality habitat for foraging. The Project site does not contain high quality nesting habitat for special status birds given that it is an orchard.
New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the Project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year.
Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the open undeveloped land on the Project site, which could serve as limited foraging habitat for birds throughout the year. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of special-status birds and buffers around nests should they be identified during the surveys. Development of the proposed Project, with the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special-status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
814
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-7 Development of the Project site would eliminate foraging habitat for special-status bats by removing the agricultural areas. These special-status bat species, or evidence of bat presence (i.e. guano), were not observed during the field surveys and have not been documented on the Project site; therefore, they are not expected to be directly affected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires surveys for active maternity roosts if removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31). If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites would be required. Therefore, development of the proposed Project with Mitigation Measure 3.4.2, would ensure that potential impacts to special status bat species are reduced to a less than significant impact.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the proposed Project would not be constructed, no habitat would be removed and no ground disturbing activities would occur. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The Project site encompasses approximately 77-acre for physical development and 78 acres for non-development entitlements. The Project site is not located in an area known to have historical and archaeological resources, however, as with most projects in the region that involve grounddisturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and archaeological resources. Implementation Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Additionally, while no human remains were found during field surveys of the Project site, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that all construction activities, which inadvertently discover human remains implement state-required consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that the potential impact to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries to a less than significant level.
The City of Clovis sent outreach letters to the twelve tribal representatives listed in the NAHC response. While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Development Area. The Proposed Project would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5- 1 would ensure that the potential impact to tribal resources, including human remains, would be less than significant.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no ground disturbing activities related to the proposed Project and would not have the potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, archaeological, or tribal resources. While the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in less potential for impacts to cultural resources as the entire Project site would 815
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North continue to be vacant agricultural land. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is subject to potential ground shaking caused by seismic activity. All construction will be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. These design standards and requirements are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. The Project site has a low risk of seismic-related ground failure as a result of liquefication. Landslide potential on the Project site is also low to nonexistent. The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, soil collapse, liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, or lateral spreading. The soils on the Project site have a low shrink-swell potential. A final soils report will be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.
Septic tanks or septic systems are not proposed as part of the Development Area and will not be installed to serve the Development area. The residences within the Non-development Area are currently on septic systems. There are no new residences proposed in this area, and no new septic systems would be installed. This area would be part of the SOI expansion area, but would not be part of the annexation. At some future date, if those residents decided to annex into the City, they would be required to connect to the City of Clovis wastewater collection and treatment system and destroy the existing septic systems.
The Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements.
The Project site is not expected to contain subsurface paleontological resources, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling of any potential resource.
This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
There are no past or current commercial mining operations within the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the proposed Project would not be constructed, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
816
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-9 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are estimated at a maximum of approximately 776.8 MT CO2e per year. The annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with operations of the proposed Project would be approximately 5,071 MT CO2e.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,097 residents during the Project’s operational phase.1 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 2.42 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is below the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized2
, would equal approximately emissions 25.9 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.01 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 2.43 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.
GHG emissions associated the proposed Project are below the derived GHG threshold; therefore, the proposed Project would not affect statewide GHG reduction goals. The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would not exceed the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Therefore, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Electricity used by the proposed Project would be used primarily to generate energy for the residential homes, landscape lighting, and street lighting. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category during Project operation is 1,231 CO2e.
The proposed Project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 2,100 gallons of gasoline and 341 gallons of diesel per day, or 341,321 gallons of gasoline and 69,484 gallons of diesel per year.
The proposed Project would use a total of approximately 18,955 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles.
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the 1 This estimate is based on the estimate provided by LSA in their Transportation Impact Analysis (LSA, 2023). 2 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years. 817
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the proposed Project would not be constructed, and no construction or operational activities would occur. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Site Assessment: Based on the review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance and contacts with the local regulatory agencies, there is evidence that PAOCs exist in connection with the historical uses of the Development Area. During the course of the Phase I ESA, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) and historical RECs (HRECs) were identified in conjunction with the Development Area as defined by ASTM E 1527-13.
However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) presented and discussed in Section
3.8 Hazards. The Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Overall, proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Construction Phase: Further, construction workers and the general public could be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of improper handling or use during construction activities (particularly by untrained personnel); transportation accidents; or fires, or other emergencies. Construction workers could also be exposed to hazards associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials, which could result in significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife. Additionally, an accidental release into the environment could result in the contamination of water, habitat and countless resources. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would require the preparation of a 818
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-11 project specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to include project specific best management measures that are designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation and runoff during construction activities.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials codified in 49 CFR 173 and 49 CFR 177 and CCR Title 26, Division 6. These regulations, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the CHP, provide specific packaging requirements, define unacceptable hazardous materials shipments, and prescribe safe-transit practices by carriers of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the risk of exposure to humans and the environment related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Construction specifications would include the following requirements in compliance with applicable regulations and codes, including, but not limited to, CCR Titles 8 and 22, Uniform Fire Code, and Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code: all reserve fuel supplies and hazardous materials must be stored within the confines of a designated construction area; equipment refueling and maintenance must take place only within the staging area; and construction vehicles shall be inspected daily for leaks. Off-site activities (e.g., utility construction) would also be required to comply with these regulations. These regulations and codes must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State and/or local jurisdictions, including the FCEHS.
Contractors would be required to comply with Cal-EPA’s Unified Program; regulated activities would be managed by FCEHS, the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for Fresno County, in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California UFC hazardous material management plans and inventories).
Overall, consistency with federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials discussed above and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8- 2 would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Operational Phase: The operational phase of the proposed Project will occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project includes the development of residential structures. Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas, including paints, cleaners and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. These facilities will store and use these materials. There will be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by FCEHS and the Clovis Fire Department.
Airports: There are no documented public airports or public use airports within close proximity to the Project site.
819
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Emergency Evacuation and Wildfire: In Fresno County, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with any of Fresno County’s emergency plans or evacuation routes. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Any construction project that could involve road closures, traffic detours and congestion, shall be required to obtain traffic control plans approved by the City as the lead agency.
The Project site is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CalFire. The Project site is not located within an LRA and is categorized as Urban Unzoned or Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately single-family residential uses, which do not pose a significant risk of wildfire.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, no new land uses would be introduced to the Project site, and the potential for hazardous material release on the Project site would be eliminated. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction: In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, the Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and the existing regulatory requirements. Further, the Project would be required to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control measures per Section 9.110.040 of the City’s Municipal Code and adhere to the City’s landscape standards designed to reduce runoff and control soil erosion. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and applicable City grading regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Operational: The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, and residential structures. The Project site will include construction of a new storm drainage system, which will conform to applicable standards and requirements. The storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB), the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and City of Clovis regulations, standards, and specifications. This includes, but not limited to, the municipal NPDES storm water discharge permit, as well as any City required Best Management Practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of storm water runoff. BMPs will be implemented through the SWPPP program and compliance with existing standards and rules, including the implementation of BMPs, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. 820
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-13 Infiltration/Natural Recharge: The proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition.
Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
Groundwater Extraction: Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective, and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.
Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area, and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area. The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells.
Groundwater use may increase as population increases, and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The water supply for the City as a whole is shifting more toward surface water supplies since 2015 and will continue on that path through 2040 to ensure compliance with the Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP).
Stormwater Quality: Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Flooding: The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The 821
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The Project site is subject to flood inundation as a result of dam failure. Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating conditions.
As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact on hydrology and water quality. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use, Population, and Housing
The Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line and is adjacent primarily to undeveloped agricultural land, rural residential land, and low-density residential uses. The Project site would result in an extension of developed uses within an area of the City that currently has approved development plans within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would provide roadways and pedestrian pathways to connect the Project site to the existing circulation system and to allow access to and from the site. Development of the Project site would not result in physical barriers, such as a highway, wall, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would serve as an orderly extension of existing and planned developments. The proposed Project would have no impact with regard to the physical division of an established community. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan. The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Clovis. The proposed zone change would ensure that zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation within the Development Area. The City will review each component of the proposed Project as plans (improvement plans, building plans, site plans, etc.) are submitted for final approval to ensure that they are consistent 822
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-15 with the City’s Zoning ordinance. Approval of the pre-zoning will ensure that the proposed Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts.
The proposed infrastructure improvements would be adequately sized to serve the proposed Project only. The proposed infrastructure would not be oversized to accommodate any growth beyond the Project site into areas that were not previously served. While the proposed Project will result in growth, it is not anticipated to significantly induce growth. Implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, no new land uses would be introduced to the Project site and the potential for land use conflicts would be eliminated. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
When comparing existing plus project levels to existing levels, Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue has the potential for significant impact as the only roadway segment with an increase of more than 3 dB. The Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line.
Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses, but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan.
To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls. These walls must be at least 4.2 lbs/ft2
. Any unshielded residential glass facades within 100
ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows, which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise sources which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses (a.k.a. neighborhood traffic, yard equipment, truck deliveries, garbage collected, etc.). Proposed neighborhood parks are located internal to the Project site and would not impact off-site residential uses.
Based upon a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to be approximately 44 dB Ldn. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a 823
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase. The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax.
This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., and East Lexington Ave.
Furthermore, noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise.
The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer or other earthmoving/grading equipment, which is calculated to be below the vibration impact threshold.
The Project site is outside the Fresno Yosemite International Airport noise contours and there are no private airstrips, public airports, or public use airports within two miles of the Project site.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact from noise. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services and Recreation
The proposed Project will create an increased demand for public services such as police protection, fire services, school services, and recreation compared to existing conditions. To the extent that the Project would have an incremental increase in demand on public services, the Project would be required to pay the impact fees to assure that the current level of service goals of the City are met. Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed periodically to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.
The Project does not propose and would not create a need for new or physically altered public service facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities.
The Project proposes to include open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres on-site, including
2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, which 824
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-17 would not provide the park land needed to meet the four acres per 1,000 people. However, Municipal Code Chapter 3.4, Park Acquisition and Development, states that any developer who plans for dwelling units to be constructed in the City shall pay, in addition to any other fees required to be paid by the City, a fee which shall be calculated on the basis of park acreage designated in the Clovis General Plan consisting of the estimated total land acquisition and construction cost distributed on the basis of the remaining developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update. Thus, upon provision and dedication of the proposed parkland and/or payment of required fees in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, and other Municipal Code policies, the proposed Project will result in a less than significant impact.
As stated previously, the proposed Project will directly increase the number of persons in the area through the addition of 605 new residential units. The Project also provides open space on-site, totaling 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and will pay park impact fees according to Municipal Code Chapters 3.04 and 3.10. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur because the Project includes new recreational facilities for residents within the Project site, and provides funding to existing park facilities through required fees.
The proposed Project would not significantly increase the use of an existing park, or other recreational facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact on public services. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Circulation
The Project VMT per capita is 20.7 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold.
Therefore, based on the TIA Guidelines, the project will have a significant VMT impact. Project design features aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of these Project design features may possibly reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately up to 1.18 percent. The Project design features can help offset some of the VMT impacts of the Project, but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable relative to this topic.
Results of the LOS analysis shows that all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near-Term (2028) Plus Project conditions with the exception of 10 intersections and 3 roadway segments; And all intersections and roadway segments are 825
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative (2046) Plus Project Conditions with the exception of 15 intersections and 10 roadway segments.
Improvements have been recommended at study intersections and roadway segments where an operational deficiency has been identified based on the results of the LOS analysis. It should be noted the intersections of SR- 168 Westbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue, and SR- 168 Eastbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under all scenarios.
However, both the ramp intersections are projected to have queuing deficiencies under future conditions (near-term and cumulative scenarios). Additionally, the adjacent intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under Near-term, and cumulative scenarios, which may further deteriorate the ramp performance due to proximity of this intersection to the freeway ramps. Therefore, an evaluation of these intersections using signal timing coordination and optimization was performed under near-term and cumulative scenario.
The intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS along with the ramp intersections under near-term, and cumulative scenarios with implementation of this improvement. Further, this also helps eliminate the queuing issues at the ramp intersections along with additional storage length improvement proposed to the SR- 168 Westbound Ramps at Herndon Avenue.
Recommended improvements for roadway segments for all analysis scenarios. It should be noted that the segment of Fowler Avenue, between Ticonderoga and Shepherd Avenue is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative (2046) without and plus project conditions. However, this segment is designated as a Rural collector (2‐lanes) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and already constructed as per the General Plan Circulation Element designation.
Additionally, the Project is not estimated to add any traffic at this segment during either peak hours. Therefore, no improvement has been recommended for this roadway segment.
With recommended improvements, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project trips. Furthermore, in the absence of a fee program where the Project has an impact on the roadway network, the Project will pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, or transit service/facility. Because the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted programs, plans, policies, or ordinances that address the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; this impact is considered less than significant.
The preliminary site plan indicates adequate emergency access would be provided and there do not appear to be any geometric hazards. Furthermore, a sight distance analysis was conducted at the Project driveways. Based on the sight distance analysis, the proposed Project driveways achieve adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for drivers.
With consideration to pedestrian safety to nearby schools, a signal should be installed at the project access intersection under the with marked crosswalks and other safety improvements. As such, a safe walking route to the elementary school would be present for elementary school students from the Project.
826
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-19 All Project access intersections, internal intersections, and internal roadways are anticipated to be carefully designed to ensure they can accommodate emergency vehicles, subject to approval of the City of Clovis. All intersections and street sections would be reviewed by the City of Clovis and designed to comply with typical City standards.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant relative to this topic.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact on traffic. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Utilities
The installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system, water supply systems, and stormwater infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies.
The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
827
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment, and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB) and City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day3
. It is estimated that the proposed 605 residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.4 tons per day. This equates to roughly 0.17 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2047 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact.
3 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs./household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
828
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-21 The No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in no development on the Project site. As such, this alternative would have no impact on utilities. As such, this impact would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
INCREASED DENSITY MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
As described in Section 3.1, the visual character of the Project site would be altered as a result of Project implementation. Implementation of the City’s design standards would ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding uses. The Clovis General Plan EIR concluded that adoption of the General plan which contemplated urbanization of the lands within the General Plan study area, was a less than significant environmental impact.
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project site. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in the City of Clovis. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the City is State Route 168, which is located in Fresno County northeast of the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis and the Project site are not visible from this roadway segment.
Additionally, there are no “eligible” highway segments in the Project vicinity that may be included in the State Scenic Highway system.
The proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light and glare impacts to ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.
Specifically, the Clovis Development Code states that direct glare shall not be permitted and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding requirements. Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting.
Implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare to a less than significant level.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in a different density and mix of land uses, but overall, it would not substantially impact the visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings, damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, or potentially significant new sources of light and glare. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Agricultural Resources
Currently, the majority of the Project site is vacant agricultural land. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation on the June 2020 Important Farmlands Map to nonagricultural use. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was utilized to determine the proposed 829
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Project’s potential impact on agricultural resources. The LESA scoring for the proposed Project shows that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not considered significant according to the California Department of Conservation’ established thresholds.
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the urban uses anticipated by the City under the adopted General Plan. There is no immediately adjacent agricultural land that poses a potential for conflict. Development of the proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same land conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. It was found that operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the existing rules and regulations would ensure that the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Project site. Residences would not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or high-traffic road, or be within any of the other CARB minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses. Regardless, the proposed Project would not have land uses that would generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different emissions generated compared to the 830
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-23 proposed Project. Emissions would be slightly greater. Thisimpact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The biological analysis showed that there were no special-status invertebrates, or their habitat, observed within the Project site during field surveys and none are expected to be affected by the proposed Project. The Project site also does not contain suitable aquatic or upland habitat for special status reptiles or amphibians known to occur in the region. It was determined during the field survey the that the agricultural disturbance on the project site precludes the existence of special-status plants unless agricultural operations were to cease. The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the Federal or State Clean Water Acts. There are no sensitive natural communities within the Project site. The land uses within the Project site would not have any direct disturbance to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to the movement corridor or habitat. The proposed Project is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed Project requires the removal of the pecan orchard within the Development Area. Pecan trees are fruit trees and are, thus, exempt from the tree removal and replacement requirements.
The Project would result in the removal of an orchard, which is not high-quality nesting or foraging habitat for special-status birds. Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land with low growing crops or grasslands represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the groundnesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB does not provide any records of special status birds on the Project site, or in the immediate vicinity.
Nevertheless, birds are highly mobile and can be expected to fly over the Project site at times.
They could use the site for foraging, although it is not high-quality habitat for foraging. The Project site does not contain high quality nesting habitat for special status birds given that it is an orchard.
New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year.
Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the open undeveloped land on the Project site, which could serve as limited foraging habitat for birds throughout the year. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of special-status birds and buffers around nests should they be identified during the surveys. Development of the proposed Project, with the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special-status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
Development of the Project site would eliminate foraging habitat for special-status bats by removing the agricultural areas. These special-status bat species, or evidence of bat presence (i.e. guano), were not observed during the field surveys and have not been documented on the Project site; therefore, they are not expected to be directly affected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires surveys for active maternity roosts if removal of suitable roosting areas 831
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31). If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites would be required. Therefore, development of the proposed Project with Mitigation Measure 3.4.2, would ensure that potential impacts to special status bat species are reduced to a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same habitat conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The Project site encompasses approximately 77-acre for physical development, and 78 acres for non-development entitlements. The Project site is not located in an area known to have historical and archaeological resources, however, as with most projects in the region that involve grounddisturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and archaeological resources. Implementation Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Additionally, while no human remains were found during field surveys of the Project site, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement state-required consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would ensure that the potential impact to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries to a less than significant level.
The City of Clovis sent outreach letters to the twelve tribal representatives listed in the NAHC response. While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Development Area. The Proposed Project would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5- 1 would ensure that the potential impact to tribal resources, including human remains, would be less than significant.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, archaeological, and tribal resources as the proposed Project.
As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is subject to potential ground shaking caused by seismic activity. All construction will be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. These design standards and requirements are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. The Project site has a low risk of seismic-related ground 832
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-25 failure as a result of liquefication. Landslide potential on the Project site is also low to nonexistent. The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, soil collapse, liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, or lateral spreading. The soils on the Project site have a low shrink-swell potential. A final soils report will be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.
Septic tanks or septic systems are not proposed as part of the Development Area and will not be installed to serve the Development area. The residences within the Non-development Area are currently on septic systems. There are no new residences proposed in this area, and no new septic systems would be installed. This area would be part of the SOI expansion, but would not be part of the annexation. At some future date, if those residents decided to annex into the City, they would be required to connect to the City of Clovis wastewater collection and treatment system and destroy the existing septic systems.
The Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements.
The Project site is not expected to contain subsurface paleontological resources, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling of any potential resource.
This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
There are no past or current commercial mining operations within the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for geologic hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are estimated at a maximum of approximately 776.8 MT CO2e per year. The annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with operations of the proposed Project would be approximately 5,071 MT CO2e.
833
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,097 residents during the Project’s operational phase.4 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 2.42 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is below the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized5
, would equal approximately emissions 25.9 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.01 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 2.43 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.
GHG emissions associated the proposed Project are below the derived GHG threshold; therefore, the proposed Project would not affect statewide GHG reduction goals. The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would not exceed the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Therefore, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Electricity used by the proposed Project would be used primarily to generate energy for the residential homes, landscape lighting, and street lighting. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category during Project operation is 1,231 CO2e.
The proposed Project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 2,100 gallons of gasoline and 341 gallons of diesel per day, or 341,321 gallons of gasoline and 69,484 gallons of diesel per year.
The proposed Project would use a total of approximately 18,955 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles.
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project, and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for 4 This estimate is based on the estimate provided by LSA in their Transportation Impact Analysis (LSA, 2023). 5 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years. 834
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-27 its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This increased density would result in greater operational emissions, and slightly more construction emissions when compared to the proposed Project.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different emissions generated compared to the proposed Project. Emissions would be slightly greater. This impact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Site Assessment: Based on the review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, and contacts with the local regulatory agencies, there is evidence that PAOCs exist in connection with the historical uses of the Development Area. During the course of the Phase I ESA, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) and historical RECs (HRECs) were identified in conjunction with the Development Area as defined by ASTM E 1527-13.
However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) presented and discussed in Section
3.8 Hazards. The Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Overall, proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Construction Phase: Further, construction workers and the general public could be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of improper handling or use during construction activities (particularly by untrained personnel); transportation accidents; or fires, or other emergencies. Construction workers could also be exposed to hazards associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials, which could result in significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife. Additionally, an accidental release into the environment could result in the contamination of water, habitat and countless resources. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would require the preparation of a project specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to include 835
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North project specific best management measures that are designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation and runoff during construction activities.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials codified in 49 CFR 173 and 49 CFR 177 and CCR Title 26, Division 6. These regulations, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the CHP, provide specific packaging requirements, define unacceptable hazardous materials shipments, and prescribe safe-transit practices by carriers of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the risk of exposure to humans and the environment related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Construction specifications would include the following requirements in compliance with applicable regulations and codes, including, but not limited to, CCR Titles 8 and 22, Uniform Fire Code, and Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code: all reserve fuel supplies and hazardous materials must be stored within the confines of a designated construction area; equipment refueling and maintenance must take place only within the staging area; and construction vehicles shall be inspected daily for leaks. Off-site activities (e.g., utility construction) would also be required to comply with these regulations. These regulations and codes must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State and/or local jurisdictions, including the FCEHS.
Contractors would be required to comply with Cal-EPA’s Unified Program; regulated activities would be managed by FCEHS, the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for Fresno County, in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California UFC hazardous material management plans and inventories).
Overall, consistency with federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials discussed above and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8- 2 would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Operational Phase: The operational phase of the proposed Project will occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project includes the development of residential structures. Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas, including paints, cleaners and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. These facilities will store and use these materials. There will be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by FCEHS and the Clovis Fire Department.
Airports: There are no documented public airports or public use airports within close proximity to the Project site.
Emergency Evacuation and Wildfire: In Fresno County, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed Project 836
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-29 does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with any of Fresno County’s emergency plans or evacuation routes. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Any construction project that could involve road closures, traffic detours and congestion, shall be required to obtain traffic control plans approved by the City as the lead agency.
The Project site is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CalFire. The Project site is not located within an LRA and is categorized as Urban Unzoned or Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately single-family residential uses, which do not pose a significant risk of wildfire.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction: In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, the Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and the existing regulatory requirements. Further, the Project would be required to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control measures per Section 9.110.040 of the City’s Municipal Code and adhere to the City’s landscape standards designed to reduce runoff and control soil erosion. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and applicable City grading regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Operational: The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways and residential structures. The Project site will include construction of a new storm drainage system, which will conform to applicable standards and requirements. The storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB), the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and City of Clovis regulations, standards, and specifications. This includes, but not limited to, the municipal NPDES storm water discharge permit, as well as any City required Best Management Practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of storm water runoff. BMPs will be implemented through the SWPPP program, and compliance with existing standards and rules, including the implementation of BMPs, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Infiltration/Natural Recharge: The proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. The infiltration rate of the soils on 837
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the Project site ranges from low to high. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition.
Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
Groundwater Extraction: Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective, and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.
Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area, and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area. The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells.
Groundwater use may increase as population increases, and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The water supply for the City as a whole is shifting more toward surface water supplies since 2015 and will continue on that path through 2040 to ensure compliance with the Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP).
Stormwater Quality: Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Flooding: The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have 838
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-31 a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The Project site is subject to flood inundation as a result of dam failure. Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating conditions.
As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use, Population, and Housing
The Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line and is adjacent primarily to undeveloped agricultural land, rural residential land, and low-density residential uses. The Project site would result in an extension of developed uses within an area of the City that currently has approved development plans within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would provide roadways and pedestrian pathways to connect the Project site to the existing circulation system and to allow access to and from the site. Development of the Project site would not result in physical barriers, such as a highway, wall, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would serve as an orderly extension of existing and planned developments. The proposed Project would have no impact with regard to the physical division of an established community. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan. The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Clovis. The proposed zone change would ensure that zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation within the Development Area. The City will review each component of the proposed Project as plans (improvement plans, building plans, site plans, etc.) are submitted for final approval to ensure that they are consistent 839
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North with the City’s Zoning ordinance. Approval of the pre-zoning will ensure that the proposed Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts.
The proposed infrastructure improvements would be adequately sized to serve the proposed Project only. The proposed infrastructure would not be oversized to accommodate any growth beyond the Project site into areas that were not previously served. While the proposed Project will result in growth, it is not anticipated to significantly induce growth. Implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would not result in a conflict with land use, zoning, or policies. The increased density of residential uses, however, would be less compatible with the neighbors to the north compared to the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
When comparing existing plus project levels to existing levels, Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue has the potential for significant impact as the only roadway segment with an increase of more than 3 dB. The Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line.
Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses, but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan.
To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls. These walls must be at least 4.2 lbs/ft2
. Any unshielded residential glass facades within 100
ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise sources which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses (a.k.a. neighborhood traffic, yard equipment, truck deliveries, garbage collected, etc.). Proposed neighborhood parks are located internal to the Project site and would not impact off-site residential uses.
Based upon a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to be approximately 44 dB Ldn. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered 840
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-33 significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase. The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax.
This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., and East Lexington Ave.
Furthermore, noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise.
The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer or other earthmoving/grading equipment, which is calculated to be below the vibration impact threshold.
The Project site is outside the Fresno Yosemite International Airport noise contours and there are no private airstrips, public airports, or public use airports within two miles of the Project site.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different travel and use characteristics compared to the proposed Project. Noise generated by traffic would be slightly greater. Construction noise would largely be the same. As such, this impact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services and Recreation
The proposed Project will create an increased demand for public services such as police protection, fire services, school services, and recreation compared to existing conditions. To the extent that the Project would have an incremental increase in demand on public services, the Project would be required to pay the impact fees to assure that the current level of service goals of the City are met. Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed periodically to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.
841
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The Project does not propose and would not create a need for new or physically altered public service facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities.
The Project proposes to include open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres on-site, including
2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, which would not provide the park land needed to meet the four acres per 1,000 people. However, Municipal Code Chapter 3.4, Park Acquisition and Development, states that any developer who plans for dwelling units to be constructed in the City shall pay, in addition to any other fees required to be paid by the City, a fee which shall be calculated on the basis of park acreage designated in the Clovis General Plan consisting of the estimated total land acquisition and construction cost distributed on the basis of the remaining developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update. Thus, upon provision and dedication of the proposed parkland and/or payment of required fees in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, and other Municipal Code policies, the proposed Project will result in a less than significant impact.
As stated previously, the proposed Project will directly increase the number of persons in the area through the addition of 605 new residential units. The Project also provides open space on-site, totaling 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and will pay park impact fees according to Municipal Code Chapters 3.04 and 3.10. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur because the Project includes new recreational facilities for residents within the Project site and provides funding to existing park facilities through required fees.
The proposed Project would not significantly increase the use of an existing park, or other recreational facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different demands for public services compared to the proposed Project. Demand for services would be slightly greater. It is still anticipated that impact fees would be adequate to offset the financial impact on public service providers. Overall, this impact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project. 842
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-35 Transportation and Circulation
The Project VMT per capita is 20.7 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold.
Therefore, based on the TIA Guidelines, the project will have a significant VMT impact. Project design features aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of these Project design features may possibly reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately up to 1.18 percent. The Project design features can help offset some of the VMT impacts of the Project, but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable relative to this topic.
Results of the LOS analysis shows that all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near-Term (2028) Plus Project conditions with the exception of 10 intersections and 3 roadway segments; And all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative (2046) Plus Project Conditions with the exception of 15 intersections and 10 roadway segments.
Improvements have been recommended at study intersections and roadway segments where an operational deficiency has been identified based on the results of the LOS analysis. It should be noted the intersections of SR- 168 Westbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue, and SR- 168 Eastbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under all scenarios.
However, both the ramp intersections are projected to have queuing deficiencies under future conditions (near-term and cumulative scenarios). Additionally, the adjacent intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under Near-term, and cumulative scenarios, which may further deteriorate the ramp performance due to proximity of this intersection to the freeway ramps. Therefore, an evaluation of these intersections using signal timing coordination and optimization was performed under near-term and cumulative scenario.
The intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS along with the ramp intersections under near-term, and cumulative scenarios with implementation of this improvement. Further, this also helps eliminate the queuing issues at the ramp intersections along with additional storage length improvement proposed to the SR- 168 Westbound Ramps at Herndon Avenue.
Recommended improvements for roadway segments for all analysis scenarios. It should be noted that the segment of Fowler Avenue, between Ticonderoga and Shepherd Avenue is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative (2046) without and plus project conditions. However, this segment is designated as a Rural collector (2‐lanes) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and already constructed as per the General Plan Circulation Element designation.
Additionally, the Project is not estimated to add any traffic at this segment during either peak hours. Therefore, no improvement has been recommended for this roadway segment.
With recommended improvements, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project trips. Furthermore, in the absence of a fee program where the Project has an impact on the roadway network, the Project will pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, or transit service/facility. Because 843
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted programs, plans, policies, or ordinances that address the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; this impact is considered less than significant.
The preliminary site plan indicates adequate emergency access would be provided and there do not appear to be any geometric hazards. Furthermore, a sight distance analysis was conducted at the Project driveways. Based on the sight distance analysis, the proposed Project driveways achieve adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for drivers.
With consideration to pedestrian safety to nearby schools, a signal should be installed at the project access intersection under the with marked crosswalks and other safety improvements. As such, a safe walking route to the elementary school would be present for elementary school students from the Project.
All Project access intersections, internal intersections, and internal roadways are anticipated to be carefully designed to ensure they can accommodate emergency vehicles, subject to approval of the City of Clovis. All intersections and street sections would be reviewed by the City of Clovis and designed to comply with typical City standards.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different traffic generation, distribution, and VMT compared to the proposed Project. Traffic generation, distribution, and VMT would be slightly greater. It is still anticipated that installation of recommended improvements and payment of impact fees would be adequate to offset the level of services impacts, but VMT would be greater.
Overall, this impact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Utilities
The installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system, water supply systems, and stormwater infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies. 844
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-37 The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment, and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB) and City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day6
. It is estimated that the proposed 605 residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.4 tons per day. This equates to roughly 0.17 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within 6 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs./household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
845
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2047 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change.
These differences would result in slightly different demands for utility services compared to the proposed Project. Demand for utilities would be slightly greater. It is still anticipated all utility providers could serve this alternative; however, this impact would be slightly greater when compared to the proposed Project.
REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
As described in Section 3.1, the visual character of the Project site would be altered as a result of Project implementation. Implementation of the City’s design standards would ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding uses. The Clovis General Plan EIR concluded that adoption of the General plan which contemplated urbanization of the lands within the General Plan study area, was a less than significant environmental impact.
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project site. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in the City of Clovis. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the City is State Route 168, which is located in Fresno County northeast of the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis and the Project site are not visible from this roadway segment.
Additionally, there are no “eligible” highway segments in the Project vicinity that may be included in the State Scenic Highway system.
846
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-39 The proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light and glare impacts to ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.
Specifically, the Clovis Development Code states that direct glare shall not be permitted and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding requirements. Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting.
Implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare to a less than significant level.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in a different density and mix of land uses, but overall, it would not substantially impact the visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings, damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, or potentially significant new sources of light and glare. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Agricultural Resources
Currently, the majority of the Project site is vacant agricultural land. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation on the June 2020 Important Farmlands Map to nonagricultural use. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was utilized to determine the proposed Project’s potential impact on agricultural resources. The LESA scoring for the proposed Project shows that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not considered significant according to the California Department of Conservation’ established thresholds.
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the urban uses anticipated by the City under the adopted General Plan. There is no immediately adjacent agricultural land that poses a potential for conflict. Development of the proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same land conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the 847
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. It was found that operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the existing rules and regulations would ensure that the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Project site. Residences would not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or high-traffic road, or be within any of the other CARB minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses. Regardless, the proposed Project would not have land uses that would generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly different emissions compared to the proposed Project. Emissions would be slightly less, as there would be fewer homes and residents. Overall, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The biological analysis showed that there were no special-status invertebrates, or their habitat, observed within the Project site during field surveys and none are expected to be affected by the proposed Project. The Project site also does not contain suitable aquatic or upland habitat for special status reptiles or amphibians known to occur in the region. It was determined during the field survey the that the agricultural disturbance on the project site precludes the existence of special-status plants unless agricultural operations were to cease. The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the Federal or State Clean Water Acts. There are no sensitive natural communities within the Project site. The land uses within the Project site would not have any direct disturbance to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to the movement corridor or habitat. The proposed Project is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed Project requires the removal of the pecan orchard within the Development Area. Pecan trees are fruit trees and are, thus, exempt from the tree removal and replacement requirements.
The Project would result in the removal of an orchard, which is not high-quality nesting or foraging habitat for special-status birds. Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land with low growing crops or grasslands represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the groundnesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late 848
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-41 July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB does not provide any records of special status birds on the Project site, or in the immediate vicinity.
Nevertheless, birds are highly mobile and can be expected to fly over the Project site at times.
They could use the site for foraging, although it is not high-quality habitat for foraging. The Project site does not contain high quality nesting habitat for special status birds given that it is an orchard.
New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year.
Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the open undeveloped land on the Project site, which could serve as limited foraging habitat for birds throughout the year. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of special-status birds and buffers around nests should they be identified during the surveys. Development of the proposed Project, with the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special-status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
Development of the Project site would eliminate foraging habitat for special-status bats by removing the agricultural areas. These special-status bat species, or evidence of bat presence (i.e. guano), were not observed during the field surveys and have not been documented on the Project site; therefore, they are not expected to be directly affected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires surveys for active maternity roosts if removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31). If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites would be required. Therefore, development of the proposed Project with Mitigation Measure 3.4.2, would ensure that potential impacts to special status bat species are reduced to a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same habitat conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The Project site encompasses approximately 77-acre for physical development, and 78 acres for non-development entitlements. The Project site is not located in an area known to have historical and archaeological resources, however, as with most projects in the region that involve grounddisturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and archaeological resources. Implementation Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Additionally, while no human remains were found during field surveys of the Project site, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement state-required consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that the potential impact to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries to a less than significant level.
849
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The City of Clovis sent outreach letters to the twelve tribal representatives listed in the NAHC response. While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Development Area. The Proposed Project would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5- 1 would ensure that the potential impact to tribal resources, including human remains, would be less than significant.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, archaeological, and tribal resources as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is subject to potential ground shaking caused by seismic activity. All construction will be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. These design standards and requirements are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. The Project site has a low risk of seismic-related ground failure as a result of liquefication. Landslide potential on the Project site is also low to nonexistent. The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, soil collapse, liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, or lateral spreading. The soils on the Project site have a low shrink-swell potential. A final soils report will be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.
Septic tanks or septic systems are not proposed as part of the Development Area and will not be installed to serve the Development area. The residences within the Non-development Area are currently on septic systems. There are no new residences proposed in this area, and no new septic systems would be installed. This area would be part of the SOI expansion, but would not be part of the annexation. At some future date, if those residents decided to annex into the City, they would be required to connect to the City of Clovis wastewater collection and treatment system and destroy the existing septic systems.
The Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements.
The Project site is not expected to contain subsurface paleontological resources, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of 850
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-43 the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling of any potential resource.
This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
There are no past or current commercial mining operations within the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for geologic hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are estimated at a maximum of approximately 776.8 MT CO2e per year. The annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with operations of the proposed Project would be approximately 5,071 MT CO2e.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,097 residents during the Project’s operational phase.7 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 2.42 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is below the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized8
, would equal approximately emissions 25.9 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.01 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 2.43 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.
GHG emissions associated the proposed Project are below the derived GHG threshold; therefore, the proposed Project would not affect statewide GHG reduction goals. The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would not exceed the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Therefore, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Electricity used by the proposed Project would be used primarily to generate energy for the residential homes, landscape lighting, and street lighting. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category during Project operation is 1,231 CO2e.
7 This estimate is based on the estimate provided by LSA in their Transportation Impact Analysis (LSA, 2023). 8 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years. 851
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The proposed Project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 2,100 gallons of gasoline and 341 gallons of diesel per day, or 341,321 gallons of gasoline and 69,484 gallons of diesel per year.
The proposed Project would use a total of approximately 18,955 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles.
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project, and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This increased density would result in greater operational emissions, and slightly more construction emissions when compared to the proposed Project.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly different emissions compared to the proposed Project. Emissions would be slightly less, as there were be fewer homes and residents. Overall, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Site Assessment: Based on the review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, and contacts with the local regulatory agencies, there is evidence that PAOCs exist in connection with 852
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-45 the historical uses of the Development Area. During the course of the Phase I ESA, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) and historical RECs (HRECs) were identified in conjunction with the Development Area as defined by ASTM E 1527-13.
However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) presented and discussed in Section
3.8 Hazards. The Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Overall, proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Construction Phase: Further, construction workers and the general public could be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of improper handling or use during construction activities (particularly by untrained personnel); transportation accidents; or fires, or other emergencies. Construction workers could also be exposed to hazards associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials, which could result in significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife. Additionally, an accidental release into the environment could result in the contamination of water, habitat, and countless resources. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would require the preparation of a project specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to include project specific best management measures that are designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials codified in 49 CFR 173 and 49 CFR 177 and CCR Title 26, Division 6. These regulations, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the CHP, provide specific packaging requirements, define unacceptable hazardous materials shipments, and prescribe safe-transit practices by carriers of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the risk of exposure to humans and the environment related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Construction specifications would include the following requirements in compliance with applicable regulations and codes, including, but not limited to, CCR Titles 8 and 22, Uniform Fire Code, and Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code: all reserve fuel supplies and hazardous materials must be stored within the confines of a designated construction area; equipment refueling and maintenance must take place only within the staging area; and construction vehicles shall be inspected daily for leaks. Off-site activities (e.g., utility construction) would also be required to comply with these regulations. These regulations and codes must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State and/or local jurisdictions, including the FCEHS.
Contractors would be required to comply with Cal-EPA’s Unified Program; regulated activities would be managed by FCEHS, the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for Fresno County, in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California UFC hazardous material management plans and inventories).
853
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Overall, consistency with federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials discussed above and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8- 2 would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Operational Phase: The operational phase of the proposed Project will occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project includes the development of residential structures. Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. These facilities will store and use these materials. There will be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by FCEHS and the Clovis Fire Department.
Airports: There are no documented public airports or public use airports within close proximity to the Project site.
Emergency Evacuation and Wildfire: In Fresno County, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with any of Fresno County’s emergency plans or evacuation routes. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Any construction project that could involve road closures, traffic detours and congestion, shall be required to obtain traffic control plans approved by the City as the lead agency.
The Project site is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CalFire. The Project site is not located within an LRA and is categorized as Urban Unzoned or Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately single-family residential uses, which do not pose a significant risk of wildfire.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction: In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, the Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and the existing regulatory requirements. Further, the Project would be required to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control measures per Section 9.110.040 of the City’s Municipal Code and adhere to the City’s landscape standards designed to reduce runoff and control soil erosion. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and applicable City grading regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
854
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-47 Operational: The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, and residential structures. The Project site will include construction of a new storm drainage system, which will conform to applicable standards and requirements. The storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB), the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and City of Clovis regulations, standards, and specifications. This includes, but not limited to, the municipal NPDES storm water discharge permit, as well as any City required Best Management Practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of storm water runoff. BMPs will be implemented through the SWPPP program, and compliance with existing standards and rules, including the implementation of BMPs, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Infiltration/Natural Recharge: The proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition.
Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
Groundwater Extraction: Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective, and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.
Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area, and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area. The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells.
Groundwater use may increase as population increases, and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The water supply for the City as a whole is shifting 855
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North more toward surface water supplies since 2015 and will continue on that path through 2040 to ensure compliance with the Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP).
Stormwater Quality: Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Flooding: The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The Project site is subject to flood inundation as a result of dam failure. Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating conditions.
As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use, Population, and Housing
The Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line and is adjacent primarily to undeveloped agricultural land, rural residential land, and low-density residential uses. The Project site would result in an extension of developed uses within an area of the City that currently has 856
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-49 approved development plans within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would provide roadways and pedestrian pathways to connect the Project site to the existing circulation system and to allow access to and from the site. Development of the Project site would not result in physical barriers, such as a highway, wall, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would serve as an orderly extension of existing and planned developments. The proposed Project would have no impact with regard to the physical division of an established community. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan. The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Clovis. The proposed zone change would ensure that zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation within the Development Area. The City will review each component of the proposed Project as plans (improvement plans, building plans, site plans, etc.) are submitted for final approval to ensure that they are consistent with the City’s Zoning ordinance. Approval of the pre-zoning will ensure that the proposed Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts.
The proposed infrastructure improvements would be adequately sized to serve the proposed Project only. The proposed infrastructure would not be oversized to accommodate any growth beyond the Project site into areas that were not previously served. While the proposed Project will result in growth, it is not anticipated to significantly induce growth. Implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would not result in a conflict with land use, zoning, or policies. The reduced density of residential uses, however, would be more compatible with the neighbors to the north compared to the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be less when compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
When comparing existing plus project levels to existing levels, Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue has the potential for significant impact as the only roadway segment with an increase of more than 3 dB. The Project's proposed residential properties are outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line.
Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses, but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan.
To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls. These walls must be at least 4.2 lbs/ft2
. Any unshielded residential glass facades within 100
ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway 857
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise sources which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses (a.k.a. neighborhood traffic, yard equipment, truck deliveries, garbage collected, etc.). Proposed neighborhood parks are located internal to the Project site and would not impact off-site residential uses.
Based upon a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to be approximately 44 dB Ldn. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase. The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax.
This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., and East Lexington Ave.
Furthermore, noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise.
The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer or other earthmoving/grading equipment, which is calculated to be below the vibration impact threshold.
The Project site is outside the Fresno Yosemite International Airport noise contours and there are no private airstrips, public airports, or public use airports within two miles of the Project site.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly lower travel and use characteristics compared to the proposed Project.
Noise generated by traffic would be slightly lower. Construction noise would largely be the same.
As such, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project. 858
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-51 Public Services and Recreation
The proposed Project will create an increased demand for public services such as police protection, fire services, school services, and recreation compared to existing conditions. To the extent that the Project would have an incremental increase in demand on public services, the Project would be required to pay the impact fees to assure that the current level of service goals of the City are met. Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed periodically to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.
The Project does not propose and would not create a need for new or physically altered public service facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities.
The Project proposes to include open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres on-site, including
2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, which would not provide the park land needed to meet the four acres per 1,000 people. However, Municipal Code Chapter 3.4, Park Acquisition and Development, states that any developer who plans for dwelling units to be constructed in the City shall pay, in addition to any other fees required to be paid by the City, a fee which shall be calculated on the basis of park acreage designated in the Clovis General Plan consisting of the estimated total land acquisition and construction cost distributed on the basis of the remaining developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update. Thus, upon provision and dedication of the proposed parkland and/or payment of required fees in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, and other Municipal Code policies, the proposed Project will result in a less than significant impact.
As stated previously, the proposed Project will directly increase the number of persons in the area through the addition of 605 new residential units. The Project also provides open space on-site, totaling 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and will pay park impact fees according to Municipal Code Chapters 3.04 and 3.10. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur because the Project includes new recreational facilities for residents within the Project site and provides funding to existing park facilities through required fees.
The proposed Project would not significantly increase the use of an existing park, or other recreational facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of 859
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly different demands for public services compared to the proposed Project.
Demand for services would be slightly less, as there were be fewer homes and residents. It is still anticipated that impact fees would be adequate to offset the financial impact on public service providers. Overall, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Circulation
The Project VMT per capita is 20.7 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold.
Therefore, based on the TIA Guidelines, the project will have a significant VMT impact. Project design features aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of these Project design features may possibly reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately up to 1.18 percent. The Project design features can help offset some of the VMT impacts of the Project, but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable relative to this topic.
Results of the LOS analysis shows that all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near-Term (2028) Plus Project conditions with the exception of 10 intersections and 3 roadway segments; And all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative (2046) Plus Project Conditions with the exception of 15 intersections and 10 roadway segments.
Improvements have been recommended at study intersections and roadway segments where an operational deficiency has been identified based on the results of the LOS analysis. It should be noted the intersections of SR- 168 Westbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue, and SR- 168 Eastbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under all scenarios.
However, both the ramp intersections are projected to have queuing deficiencies under future conditions (near-term and cumulative scenarios). Additionally, the adjacent intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under Near-term, and cumulative scenarios, which may further deteriorate the ramp performance due to proximity of this intersection to the freeway ramps. Therefore, an evaluation of these intersections using signal timing coordination and optimization was performed under near-term and cumulative scenario.
The intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS along with the ramp intersections under near-term, and cumulative scenarios with implementation of this improvement. Further, this also helps eliminate the queuing issues at the ramp intersections along with additional storage length improvement proposed to the SR- 168 Westbound Ramps at Herndon Avenue.
Recommended improvements for roadway segments for all analysis scenarios. It should be noted that the segment of Fowler Avenue, between Ticonderoga and Shepherd Avenue is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative (2046) without and plus project conditions. However, 860
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-53 this segment is designated as a Rural collector (2‐lanes) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and already constructed as per the General Plan Circulation Element designation.
Additionally, the Project is not estimated to add any traffic at this segment during either peak hours. Therefore, no improvement has been recommended for this roadway segment.
With recommended improvements, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project trips. Furthermore, in the absence of a fee program where the Project has an impact on the roadway network, the Project will pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, or transit service/facility. Because the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted programs, plans, policies, or ordinances that address the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; this impact is considered less than significant.
The preliminary site plan indicates adequate emergency access would be provided and there do not appear to be any geometric hazards. Furthermore, a sight distance analysis was conducted at the Project driveways. Based on the sight distance analysis, the proposed Project driveways achieve adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for drivers.
With consideration to pedestrian safety to nearby schools, a signal should be installed at the project access intersection under the with marked crosswalks and other safety improvements. As such, a safe walking route to the elementary school would be present for elementary school students from the Project.
All Project access intersections, internal intersections, and internal roadways are anticipated to be carefully designed to ensure they can accommodate emergency vehicles, subject to approval of the City of Clovis. All intersections and street sections would be reviewed by the City of Clovis and designed to comply with typical City standards.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly less traffic generation, distribution, and VMT compared to the proposed Project. Traffic generation, distribution, and total VMT would be slightly less. It is still anticipated that installation of recommended improvements and payment of impact fees would be adequate to offset the level of services impacts. Total VMT would be less, but per capita VMT would be approximately the same. Overall, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.
861
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-54 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Utilities
The installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system, water supply systems, and stormwater infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies.
The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment, and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB) and City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included 862
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-55 in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day9
. It is estimated that the proposed 605 residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.4 tons per day. This equates to roughly 0.17 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2047 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site, however, the mix of land uses and zoning would change. These differences would result in slightly different demands for utility services compared to the proposed Project.
Demand for utility services would be slightly less, as there would be fewer homes and residents.
Overall, this impact would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.
REDUCED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
As described in Section 3.1, the visual character of the Project site would be altered as a result of Project implementation. Implementation of the City’s design standards would ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the 9 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs./household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
863
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-56 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North City’s design requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding uses. The Clovis General Plan EIR concluded that adoption of the General plan which contemplated urbanization of the lands within the General Plan study area, was a less than significant environmental impact.
There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project site. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in the City of Clovis. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the City is State Route 168, which is located in Fresno County northeast of the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis and the Project site are not visible from this roadway segment.
Additionally, there are no “eligible” highway segments in the Project vicinity that may be included in the State Scenic Highway system.
The proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light and glare impacts to ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.
Specifically, the Clovis Development Code states that direct glare shall not be permitted and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding requirements. Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting.
Implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare to a less than significant level.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has physically the same impacts. Overall, this alternative would not substantially impact the visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings, damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, or potentially significant new sources of light and glare. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Agricultural Resources
Currently, the majority of the Project site is vacant agricultural land. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation on the June 2020 Important Farmlands Map to nonagricultural use. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was utilized to determine the proposed Project’s potential impact on agricultural resources. The LESA scoring for the proposed Project shows that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not considered significant according to the California Department of Conservation’ established thresholds.
The Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the urban uses anticipated by the City under the adopted General Plan. There is no immediately adjacent agricultural land that poses a potential for conflict. Development of the proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. The elimination of the Non-Development Area from this alternative would have no physical benefits relative to this topic. This alternative would result in 864
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-57 the same land conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CalEEModTM (v.2020.4.0) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. It was found that operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the existing rules and regulations would ensure that the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.
Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Project site. Residences would not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or high-traffic road, or be within any of the other CARB minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses. Regardless, the proposed Project would not have land uses that would generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative and has physically the same impacts. This would result in equal operational emissions, and equal construction emissions when compared to the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The biological analysis showed that there were no special-status invertebrates, or their habitat, observed within the Project site during field surveys and none are expected to be affected by the proposed Project. The Project site also does not contain suitable aquatic or upland habitat for special status reptiles or amphibians known to occur in the region. It was determined during the field survey the that the agricultural disturbance on the project site precludes the existence of special-status plants unless agricultural operations were to cease. The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the Federal or State Clean Water Acts. There are no sensitive natural communities within the Project site. The land uses within the Project site would not have any direct disturbance 865
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-58 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to the movement corridor or habitat. The proposed Project is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed Project requires the removal of the pecan orchard within the Development Area. Pecan trees are fruit trees and are, thus, exempt from the tree removal and replacement requirements.
The Project would result in the removal of an orchard, which is not high-quality nesting or foraging habitat for special-status birds. Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land with low growing crops or grasslands represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the groundnesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB does not provide any records of special status birds on the Project site, or in the immediate vicinity.
Nevertheless, birds are highly mobile and can be expected to fly over the Project site at times.
They could use the site for foraging, although it is not high-quality habitat for foraging. The Project site does not contain high quality nesting habitat for special status birds given that it is an orchard.
New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year.
Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the open undeveloped land on the Project site, which could serve as limited foraging habitat for birds throughout the year. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of special-status birds and buffers around nests should they be identified during the surveys. Development of the proposed Project, with the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special-status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.
Development of the Project site would eliminate foraging habitat for special-status bats by removing the agricultural areas. These special-status bat species, or evidence of bat presence (i.e. guano), were not observed during the field surveys and have not been documented on the Project site; therefore, they are not expected to be directly affected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires surveys for active maternity roosts if removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31). If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites would be required. Therefore, development of the proposed Project with Mitigation Measure 3.4.2, would ensure that potential impacts to special status bat species are reduced to a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Density Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same habitat conversion as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The Project site encompasses approximately 77-acre for physical development, and 78 acres for non-development entitlements. The Project site is not located in an area known to have historical 866
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-59 and archaeological resources, however, as with most projects in the region that involve grounddisturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and archaeological resources. Implementation Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Additionally, while no human remains were found during field surveys of the Project site, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement state-required consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that the potential impact to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries to a less than significant level.
The City of Clovis sent outreach letters to the twelve tribal representatives listed in the NAHC response. While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Development Area. The Proposed Project would be required to follow development requirements, including compliance with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5- 1 would ensure that the potential impact to tribal resources, including human remains, would be less than significant.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, archaeological, and tribal resources as the proposed Project.
As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The Project site is subject to potential ground shaking caused by seismic activity. All construction will be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. These design standards and requirements are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. The Project site has a low risk of seismic-related ground failure as a result of liquefication. Landslide potential on the Project site is also low to nonexistent. The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, soil collapse, liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, or lateral spreading. The soils on the Project site have a low shrink-swell potential. A final soils report will be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.
Septic tanks or septic systems are not proposed as part of the Development Area and will not be installed to serve the Development area. The residences within the Non-development Area are currently on septic systems. There are no new residences proposed in this area, and no new septic systems would be installed. This area would be part of the SOI expansion, but would not be part of the annexation. At some future date, if those residents decided to annex into the City, they 867
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-60 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North would be required to connect to the City of Clovis wastewater collection and treatment system and destroy the existing septic systems.
The Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements.
The Project site is not expected to contain subsurface paleontological resources, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling of any potential resource.
This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
There are no past or current commercial mining operations within the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for geologic hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are estimated at a maximum of approximately 776.8 MT CO2e per year. The annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with operations of the proposed Project would be approximately 5,071 MT CO2e.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,097 residents during the Project’s operational phase.10 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 2.42 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is below the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized11, would equal approximately emissions 25.9 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.01 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 2.43 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.
10 This estimate is based on the estimate provided by LSA in their Transportation Impact Analysis (LSA, 2023).
11 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years. 868
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-61 GHG emissions associated the proposed Project are below the derived GHG threshold; therefore, the proposed Project would not affect statewide GHG reduction goals. The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would not exceed the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Therefore, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Electricity used by the proposed Project would be used primarily to generate energy for the residential homes, landscape lighting, and street lighting. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category during Project operation is 1,231 CO2e.
The proposed Project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 2,100 gallons of gasoline and 341 gallons of diesel per day, or 341,321 gallons of gasoline and 69,484 gallons of diesel per year.
The proposed Project would use a total of approximately 18,955 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles.
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project, and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
869
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-62 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North These impacts would be similar with the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This increased density would result in greater operational emissions, and slightly more construction emissions when compared to the proposed Project.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Site Assessment: Based on the review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, and contacts with the local regulatory agencies, there is evidence that PAOCs exist in connection with the historical uses of the Development Area. During the course of the Phase I ESA, no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) and historical RECs (HRECs) were identified in conjunction with the Development Area as defined by ASTM E 1527-13.
However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) presented and discussed in Section
3.8 Hazards. The Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Overall, proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Construction Phase: Further, construction workers and the general public could be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of improper handling or use during construction activities (particularly by untrained personnel); transportation accidents; or fires, or other emergencies. Construction workers could also be exposed to hazards associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials, which could result in significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife. Additionally, an accidental release into the environment could result in the contamination of water, habitat, and countless resources. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would require the preparation of a project specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to include project specific best management measures that are designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials codified in 49 CFR 173 and 49 CFR 177 and CCR Title 26, Division 6. These regulations, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the CHP, provide specific packaging requirements, define unacceptable hazardous materials shipments, and prescribe safe-transit practices by carriers of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the risk of exposure to humans and the environment related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
Construction specifications would include the following requirements in compliance with applicable regulations and codes, including, but not limited to, CCR Titles 8 and 22, Uniform Fire Code, and Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code: all reserve fuel supplies and hazardous materials must be stored within the confines of a designated construction area; 870
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-63 equipment refueling and maintenance must take place only within the staging area; and construction vehicles shall be inspected daily for leaks. Off-site activities (e.g., utility construction) would also be required to comply with these regulations. These regulations and codes must be implemented, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State and/or local jurisdictions, including the FCEHS.
Contractors would be required to comply with Cal-EPA’s Unified Program; regulated activities would be managed by FCEHS, the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for Fresno County, in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California UFC hazardous material management plans and inventories).
Overall, consistency with federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials discussed above and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8- 2 would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Operational Phase: The operational phase of the proposed Project will occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project includes the development of residential structures. Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas, including paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. If handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. These facilities will store and use these materials. There will be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by FCEHS and the Clovis Fire Department.
Airports: There are no documented public airports or public use airports within close proximity to the Project site.
Emergency Evacuation and Wildfire: In Fresno County, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with any of Fresno County’s emergency plans or evacuation routes. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Any construction project that could involve road closures, traffic detours and congestion, shall be required to obtain traffic control plans approved by the City as the lead agency.
The Project site is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CalFire. The Project site is not located within an LRA and is categorized as Urban Unzoned or Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately single-family residential uses, which do not pose a significant risk of wildfire.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for hazards as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
871
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-64 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction: In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, the Project requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and the existing regulatory requirements. Further, the Project would be required to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control measures per Section 9.110.040 of the City’s Municipal Code and adhere to the City’s landscape standards designed to reduce runoff and control soil erosion. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and applicable City grading regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Operational: The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, and residential structures. The Project site will include construction of a new storm drainage system, which will conform to applicable standards and requirements. The storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB), the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and City of Clovis regulations, standards, and specifications. This includes, but not limited to, the municipal NPDES storm water discharge permit, as well as any City required Best Management Practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of storm water runoff. BMPs will be implemented through the SWPPP program, and compliance with existing standards and rules, including the implementation of BMPs, would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Infiltration/Natural Recharge: The proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition.
Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
Groundwater Extraction: Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective, and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040. The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources. 872
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-65 Groundwater supply projections include approved developments outside of the City boundaries, but within the planning area, and estimated groundwater pumping by others within the planning area. The projected groundwater supply reliability does not account for groundwater pumping outside the City planning area, nor undocumented privately owned domestic or irrigation wells.
Groundwater use may increase as population increases, and groundwater use by others (including school districts and agricultural users) may also increase in single dry years and multiple dry years (when surface water cutbacks occur).
The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The water supply for the City as a whole is shifting more toward surface water supplies since 2015 and will continue on that path through 2040 to ensure compliance with the Kings sub basin groundwater sustainability plan (GSP).
Stormwater Quality: Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Flooding: The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The Project site is subject to flood inundation as a result of dam failure. Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating conditions. 873
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-66 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site. This alternative would result in the same potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. As such, this impact would be largely equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use, Population, and Housing
The Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line and is adjacent primarily to undeveloped agricultural land, rural residential land, and low-density residential uses. The Project site would result in an extension of developed uses within an area of the City that currently has approved development plans within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project would provide roadways and pedestrian pathways to connect the Project site to the existing circulation system and to allow access to and from the site. Development of the Project site would not result in physical barriers, such as a highway, wall, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would serve as an orderly extension of existing and planned developments. The proposed Project would have no impact with regard to the physical division of an established community. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan. The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Clovis. The proposed zone change would ensure that zoning will be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation within the Development Area. The City will review each component of the proposed Project as plans (improvement plans, building plans, site plans, etc.) are submitted for final approval to ensure that they are consistent with the City’s Zoning ordinance. Approval of the pre-zoning will ensure that the proposed Project will be consistent with the Zoning Code. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts.
The proposed infrastructure improvements would be adequately sized to serve the proposed Project only. The proposed infrastructure would not be oversized to accommodate any growth beyond the Project site into areas that were not previously served. While the proposed Project will result in growth, it is not anticipated to significantly induce growth. Implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
When comparing existing plus project levels to existing levels, Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue has the potential for significant impact as the only roadway segment with an increase of more than 3 dB. The Project's proposed residential properties are 874
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-67 outside of Shepherd Avenue's and Sunnyside Avenue's 70 dBA CNEL contours. Residences along the first row of Sunnyside will experience levels up to 69.9 dBA CNEL at the property line.
Residences along Shepherd Avenue will be exposed to levels up to 69.1 dBA CNEL at the property line. These are within the normally compatible levels for residential uses, but above the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard as outlined in Table ES-1 of the 2014 General Plan.
To meet the exterior residential standards, the unshielded residential private yards within 100 ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue must be shielded by 6-foot sound walls. These walls must be at least 4.2 lbs/ft2
. Any unshielded residential glass facades within 100
ft of the centerline of Shepherd Avenue or Sunnyside Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 30 or more. This includes any 2nd-floor windows which would not be shielded by the 6- foot sound walls.
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise sources which would be compatible with the adjacent existing residential uses (a.k.a. neighborhood traffic, yard equipment, truck deliveries, garbage collected, etc.). Proposed neighborhood parks are located internal to the Project site and would not impact off-site residential uses.
Based upon a 25-dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to be approximately 44 dB Ldn. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase. The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax.
This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., and East Lexington Ave.
Furthermore, noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise.
The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a bulldozer or other earthmoving/grading equipment, which is calculated to be below the vibration impact threshold. 875
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-68 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The Project site is outside the Fresno Yosemite International Airport noise contours and there are no private airstrips, public airports, or public use airports within two miles of the Project site.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services and Recreation
The proposed Project will create an increased demand for public services such as police protection, fire services, school services, and recreation compared to existing conditions. To the extent that the Project would have an incremental increase in demand on public services, the Project would be required to pay the impact fees to assure that the current level of service goals of the City are met. Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed periodically to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.
The Project does not propose and would not create a need for new or physically altered public service facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities.
The Project proposes to include open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres on-site, including
2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, which would not provide the park land needed to meet the four acres per 1,000 people. However, Municipal Code Chapter 3.4, Park Acquisition and Development, states that any developer who plans for dwelling units to be constructed in the City shall pay, in addition to any other fees required to be paid by the City, a fee which shall be calculated on the basis of park acreage designated in the Clovis General Plan consisting of the estimated total land acquisition and construction cost distributed on the basis of the remaining developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update. Thus, upon provision and dedication of the proposed parkland and/or payment of required fees in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, and other Municipal Code policies, the proposed Project will result in a less than significant impact.
As stated previously, the proposed Project will directly increase the number of persons in the area through the addition of 605 new residential units. The Project also provides open space on-site, totaling 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and will pay park impact fees according to Municipal Code Chapters 3.04 and 3.10. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would result in a significant increase in 876
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-69 the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur because the Project includes new recreational facilities for residents within the Project site, and provides funding to existing park facilities through required fees.
The proposed Project would not significantly increase the use of an existing park, or other recreational facility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Circulation
The Project VMT per capita is 20.7 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold.
Therefore, based on the TIA Guidelines, the project will have a significant VMT impact. Project design features aim to promote overall mobility with the goal of reducing VMT and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of these Project design features may possibly reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately up to 1.18 percent. The Project design features can help offset some of the VMT impacts of the Project, but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable relative to this topic.
Results of the LOS analysis shows that all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near-Term (2028) Plus Project conditions with the exception of 10 intersections and 3 roadway segments; And all intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative (2046) Plus Project Conditions with the exception of 15 intersections and 10 roadway segments.
Improvements have been recommended at study intersections and roadway segments where an operational deficiency has been identified based on the results of the LOS analysis. It should be noted the intersections of SR- 168 Westbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue, and SR- 168 Eastbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under all scenarios.
However, both the ramp intersections are projected to have queuing deficiencies under future conditions (near-term and cumulative scenarios). Additionally, the adjacent intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under Near-term, and cumulative scenarios, which may further deteriorate the ramp performance due to proximity of this intersection to the freeway ramps. Therefore, an evaluation of these intersections using signal timing coordination and optimization was performed under near-term and cumulative scenario.
The intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS along with the ramp intersections under near-term, and cumulative scenarios with implementation of this improvement. Further, this also helps eliminate the queuing issues at the ramp intersections along with additional storage length improvement proposed to the SR- 168 Westbound Ramps at Herndon Avenue.
877
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-70 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Recommended improvements for roadway segments for all analysis scenarios. It should be noted that the segment of Fowler Avenue, between Ticonderoga and Shepherd Avenue is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative (2046) without and plus project conditions. However, this segment is designated as a Rural collector (2‐lanes) in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and already constructed as per the General Plan Circulation Element designation.
Additionally, the Project is not estimated to add any traffic at this segment during either peak hours. Therefore, no improvement has been recommended for this roadway segment.
With recommended improvements, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project trips. Furthermore, in the absence of a fee program where the Project has an impact on the roadway network, the Project will pay its respective fair share for the proposed improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with an existing or planned pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, or transit service/facility. Because the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted programs, plans, policies, or ordinances that address the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; this impact is considered less than significant.
The preliminary site plan indicates adequate emergency access would be provided and there do not appear to be any geometric hazards. Furthermore, a sight distance analysis was conducted at the Project driveways. Based on the sight distance analysis, the proposed Project driveways achieve adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for drivers.
With consideration to pedestrian safety to nearby schools, a signal should be installed at the project access intersection under the with marked crosswalks and other safety improvements. As such, a safe walking route to the elementary school would be present for elementary school students from the Project.
All Project access intersections, internal intersections, and internal roadways are anticipated to be carefully designed to ensure they can accommodate emergency vehicles, subject to approval of the City of Clovis. All intersections and street sections would be reviewed by the City of Clovis and designed to comply with typical City standards.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increase hazards due to a geometric feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant relative to this topic.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
Utilities
The installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system, water supply systems, and stormwater infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
878
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-71 The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies.
The majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The flood zone designation of the site is also not due to a reduced risk from a levee nor is it located within a regulatory floodway.
The portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed. A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no new structures would be constructed within the 100-year flood plain.
The proposed stormwater collection system functions through storm drainage collection, treatment, and discharge. The exact sizing of the underground piping will be engineered during the preparation of the improvement plans, which will be in coordination with FMFCD. The proposed storm drainage collection and detention system will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Requirements (SWRCB) and City of Clovis regulations; Phase II, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements; NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements; and LID Guidelines.
Stormwater quality standards imposed and monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB through the NPDES permit require treatment of stormwater runoff prior to its release into drainage features. Stormwater quality is an integral part of FMFCD’s stormwater management system. With the design and construction of flood control improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system in accordance with FMFCD’s requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. 879
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-72 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Per CalRecycle generation rate estimates, the Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 12 pounds per household per day12. It is estimated that the proposed 605 residential units would generate approximately 7,400 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 3.4 tons per day. This equates to roughly 0.17 percent of the total allowable daily maximum disposal at the Clovis Landfill and would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with future buildout of the proposed Project is expected to be within the permitted capacities of landfills utilized by the City. Based on the estimated closure dates of the Clovis Landfill in 2047 and the American Avenue Landfill in 2031, development under the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity. This is a less than significant impact.
Electrical services are provided by PG&E; phone, provided by AT&T; cable, provided by Comcast; and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along Shepherd Avenue and from existing residential development surrounding the Project site. PG&E and AT&T operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project area. Proposed utilities would be located within public utility easements to be dedicated along street frontages. Although the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity, and telecommunications facilities, utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements. Although the Project would require construction of new electrical facilities within the site, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the Project site. The proposed Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, and telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This is a less than significant impact.
These impacts would be similar with the Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative as this alternative is located on the same site and has the same land uses and zoning. As such, this impact would be equal when compared to the proposed Project.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project.
As Table 5.0-1 presents a comparison of the alternative Project impacts with those of the proposed Project. As shown in the table, the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project (No 12 Note: data based on CalRecycle estimated solid waste generation rates for single family residential uses.;
12.23 lbs./household/day. (CalRecycle, 2022A).
880
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 5.0-73 Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because all environmental issues would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is noted that the Reduced Density Alternative does not fully meet all of the Project objectives.
TABLE 5.0-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE
NO PROJECT
(NO BUILD)
ALTERNATIVE
INCREASED DENSITY
MIXED USE
ALTERNATIVE
REDUCED DENSITY
ALTERNATIVE
REDUCED SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE
ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual
Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Agricultural
Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Air Quality Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Biological Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Cultural and Tribal
Resources Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Geology and Soils Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Greenhouse Gases,
Climate Change and
Energy
Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Hydrology and Water
Quality Less (Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (2nd Best) Land Use,
Population, and
Housing
Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Noise Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Public Services and
Recreation Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Transportation and
Circulation Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Equal (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) Utilities Less (Best) Greater (4th Best) Less (2nd Best) Equal (3rd Best) GREATER = GREATER IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT LESS = LESS IMPACT THAN THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
EQUAL = NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN IMPACT FROM THAT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 881
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.0-74 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This page left intentionally blank.
882
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 6.0-1
CITY OF CLOVIS
George Gonzalez.........................................................................................................Senior Planner Dave Merchen.................................................................................................................City Planner Sean Smith, PE ..........................................................................................Supervising Civil Engineer
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
Steve McMurtry......................................................................... Principal Planner/Project Manager Elise Carroll .................................................................................................................Senior Planner Josh Smith...................................................................................................................Senior Planner Eric Anderson.........................................................................................................Associate Planner Jeff Setterlund........................................................................................................Associate Planner Courtney Marchi .................................................................................................... Assistant Planner Jennifer De Martino...................................................................................................... GIS Manager Ziqian Yin......................................................................................................................... GIS Analyst LSA
Ambarish, PE, AICP............................................................................................................... Principal MD ACOUSTICS – NOISE CONSULTANT
Mike Dickerson, INCE........................................................................................................... Principal PEAK ASSOCIATES – CULTURAL CONSULTANT
Melinda Peak ................................................................................................... Principal Investigator PROVOST & PRITCHARD – WATER SUPPLY CONSULTANT
Heather Bashian, PE ............................................................................................................ Principal 883
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
6.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
6.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This page intentionally left blank.
884
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-1 Amec Foster Wheeler, 2018, Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Argonaut Ecological Consulting, Inc. Biological Habitat Assessment of the Tract 6205, Spensley Property: N. Sunnyside at Shepherd Avenue, Clovis, Fresno County, California. April 20, 2018.
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018. 2018 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. January 1, 2018.
Barbour and Major. 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California.
Baumhoff, Martin A. 1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2): 155-236. Berkeley.
Baumhoff, Martin A., and David Olmsted 1963 Radiocarbon support for Glottochronology. American Anthropologist 65(2): 278- 284. 1964 Notes on Palaihnihan culture history: glottochronology and archaeology. Studies in California linguistics, edited by William Bright, pp. 1-12.
University of California Publications in Linguistics 34. Berkeley.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate. April.
San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en Beardsley, Richard K. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 2). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.
Beck, Warren A. and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. City of Clovis 1962 The History of Clovis: 50 Years of Progress. Published booklet, on file, California Room of the California State Library, Sacramento.
BSK Associates. (2022). Clovis Sanitary Landfill Clovis, California. Client: City of Clovis. Available at https://www.bskassociates.com/clovis-sanitary-landfill-clovis-california-client-city-clovis/.
Accessed July 22, 2022.
C. Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. Air Toxics Hotspot Program.
Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/CAPCOA%20Prioritization%20Guidelines%20- %20August%202016%20FINAL.pdf
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod. November 8, 2017.
885
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2014. Background Material: Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition - Chapter 4 Regional Trends and Forecasts. Page last reviewed on February 7, 2014. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/chap413.htm California Air Resources Board. 2021. Emission Inventory. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissionsinventory/aa784749921657a3127202959a402bfceebb4665 California Air Resources Board. 2018 (November). Progress Report, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2023.
California Air Resources Board. 2023 Area Designations Maps/State and National. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
California Air Resources Board. 2019. 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb2017-scoping-plan-identified-vmt-reductions-and-relationship-state-climate. Accessed February 27, 2023.
California Air Resources Board. 2019a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm
California Air Resources Board. 2019b. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php California Air Resources Board. 2019c. Carbon Monoxide and Health. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/co/co.htm
California Air Resources Board. 2019d. What is Carbon Monoxide? Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health.
California Air Resources Board. 2019e. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm California Air Resources Board. 2020b. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations California Air Resources Board. 2020c. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed July 13, 2022a. 886
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-3 California Department of Conservation, AB3098 List – March 15, 2022, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/SMARA%20Mines/Pages/SMARA%20Administratio n%20Units.aspx, accessed July 12, 2022b.
California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act/Land Conservation Act. Available:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmlands Map.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2016-2018. Table A-30: Fresno County 2016-2018 Land Use Conversion.
California Department of Education. 2022. 2021-22 Enrollment by Grade; Clovis Unified Report. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=1062117&agglevel=dis trict&year=2021-22. Accessed July 12, 2022.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022.
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed July 12, 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California.”
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Special Animals List.” Natural Diversity Database.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” Natural Diversity Database.
California Department Fish and Wildlife. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Animals of California.”
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2019). Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility With Reported ADC and AIC; Disposal during 2019 for Clovis.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2021). Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends (Post 2006); Jurisdiction: Clovis.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2021). Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends; Jurisdiction: Clovis.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2021). Disposal Rate Calculator. Available:
887
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed May 3, 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Residential.
Accessed May 3, 2022
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Search. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed Accessed May 3, 2022
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: American Avenue Disposal Site. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352.
Accessed May 3, 2022
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Avenal Regional Landfill. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3755?siteID=898.
Accessed May 3, 2022
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Fairmead Solid Waste Disposal Site. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3028?siteID=1701.
Accessed May 3, 2022
California Department of Water Resources. 2016. Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report).
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 – Update 2003, October 2003.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2006, California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 - San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin/Kings Subbasin, https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5_022_08_KingsSubbasin.pdf, accessed July 12, 2022.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California’s Groundwater Update 2020, November 2021.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California’s Groundwater Update 2013, April 2015.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Scenic Highways. California State Scenice Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 888
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-5 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1988, Special Report 158, Mineral Land Classification:
Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region.
California Geological Survey. 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx.
California Geologic Survey, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed July 12, 2022.
California Energy Commission. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Abstract, pg. 5.
California Energy Commission. 2023. Energy Almanac. Available:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/index.html
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010. Available:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. 2023. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed February 25. 2023 Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. Envirostor Data Management System.
Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno%2C+ca.
California State Water Resources Board. 2019. GeoTracker. Accessed on September 10, 2019.
Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx and http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
City of Clovis, Department of Planning and Development Services. (2014). 2014 Master Service Plan Update.
City of Clovis. City of Clovis General Plan. August 2014.
City of Clovis. Clovis Municipal Code, A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Clovis, California. Current through Ordinance 22-11, passed November 14, 2022. August 2014.
City of Clovis. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, City of Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update. June 2014.
City of Clovis. (2018). Parks Master Plan.
889
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North City of Clovis. 2021A. Fire Station 6 Groundbreaking Ceremony. https://cityofclovis.com/firestation-6-groundbreaking-ceremony/. Accessed July 13, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022A. About Clovis FD. https://cityofclovis.com/fire/about-fd/. Accessed July 12, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022. Fire. https://cityofclovis.com/fire/. Accessed July 12, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022. Recycling & Refuse. Available at https://cityofclovis.com/publicutilities/recycling-and-refuse/ . Accessed May 3, 2022 City of Clovis. 2022B. Fire Stations. https://cityofclovis.com/fire/emergency-services/firestations/. Accessed July 12, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022C. General Services. https://cityofclovis.com/general-services/. Accessed July 12, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022D. Recreation. https://cityofclovis.com/general-services/recreation/. Accessed July 13, 2022.
City of Clovis. 2022E. Senior Services. https://cityofclovis.com/general-services/senior-services/.
Accessed July 12, 2022.
Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr. 1984 Fresno County—The Pioneer Years: From the Beginning to 1900. Panorama West Books, Fresno.
Clovis Centennial Book Committee 2011 Images of America: Clovis. Arcadia Publishing.
Clovis Fire Department. (CFD). 2017. 2017-2022 Strategic Plan.
Clovis Fire Department. (CFD). 2021. Annual Report 2021.
Clovis Fire Department. (CFD). 2022. Annual Report 2022.
Clovis Police Department. (CPD). 2021A. 21st Century Policing Report to the Community.
Clovis Police Department. (CPD). 2021B. End of Year Report.
Clovis Unified School District (CUSD). 2022A. Annual Report to the Community. https://www.cusd.com/AnnualReport.aspx. Accessed July 13, 2022.
Clovis Unified School District (CUSD). 2022B. Developer Fees. https://www.cusd.com/DeveloperFees.aspx. Accessed July 12, 2022.
Community Health System. 2022. Fact Sheet: Clovis Community Medical Center.
Community Health System. 2022. Fact Sheet: Community Health System. 890
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-7 Cook, Sherburne F. 1960 Colonial expeditions to the interior of California: Central Valley 1800-1820.
University of California Anthropological Records 16(6): 239-292. Berkeley. 1955a The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Press Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley. 1955b The epidemic of 1830-33 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):
303-326. Berkeley.
County of Fresno. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-worksand-planning/development-services-division/planning-and-land-use/general-plan-maps.
County of Fresno. 2000. 2000 Fresno County General Plan Background Report. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398.
County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743.
County of Fresno. 2023. Ordinance Code of Fresno County, California. Codified through Ordinance No. 22-010, adopted July 12, 2022. (Supp. No. 41). Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances.
Davis, James T. 1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California.
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.
Elliott, Wallace W. 1882 History of Fresno County, California with Illustrations. Wallace W. Elliott & Company, Publishers, San Francisco.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2009). FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map; Fresno County, California, Map No. 06019C1580H.
Fickewirth, Alvin A. 1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books. San Marino, CA.
Fredrickson, David A. 1967 Additional C-14 dates for water resources investigations at Buena Vista Lake. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 1(5).
Frickstad, Walter 1955 A Century of California Post Offices. Pacific Rotapress Printing Company, Oakland.
Fredrickson, David A., and J. Grossman 1966 Radiocarbon Dating of an Early Site at Buena Vista Lake, California. Paper read before the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Reno. 1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(2): 173-190.
Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2018-2042. Available: https://www.fresnocog.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/2018-RTP-Cover-Intro-table-of-contents-etc.Final-Draft.pdf. 891
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2018. Available at: https://www.fresnocog.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04-17c.pdf.
Fresno County Public Library (FCPL). 2022A. About the Library. https://fresnolibrary.org/about/index.html. Accessed July 12, 2022.
Fresno County Public Library (FCPL). 2022B. Clovis Regional Library. https://fresnolibrary.org/branch/clo.html. Accessed July 12, 2022.
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission. July 13, 2016. City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2017. 2016 District Services Plan, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2020. Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Plan FY 2019-2020.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2013, Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2020, Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program, FY 2019-20 Annual Report.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2022a, About Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, https://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/, accessed July 12, 2022.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2022b, Annual Budget Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2023.
Fresno Republican newspaper 1897 Imperial Fresno. Facsimile reproduction, published 1979 by the Fresno City and County Historical Society. Gates, Paul W. 1991 Land and Law in California:
Essays on Land Policies. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Gifford, E. W., and W. E. Schenck 1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No. 1.
Gudde, Erwin 1969 California Place Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hayes, Derek 2007 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hickman, James C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.
Hofsommer, Don L. 1986 The Southern Pacific, 1901-1985. Texas A &M University Press, College Station.
892
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-9 Holland, R.F., 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Dept. Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.
Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch (William N. Abeloe, editor) 1970 Historic Spots in California (Third Edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford.
ICF. 2018. Draft Subsequent Focused Environmental Impact Report Proposed Updates to City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Recycled Water Master Plan. Public Draft. February. (ICF 00004.15.)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2019, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Tract 6205 (Spensley Property) Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues Clovis, California.
Krazan & Associates, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Tract No. 6205 Property: Northeast corner of N. Sunnyside and E. Shepherd Avenues, Clovis, California 93619. January 14, 2019.
Krhan, K., Management Analyst Clovis Fire Department. (2022). Personal Communication: Email, July 15, 2022.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
78. Washington, D.C.
Latta, Franklin F. 1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.
Lewis Publishing Company 1892 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Fresno, Tulare and Kern. California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2.
Sacramento.
Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves 1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.
MD Acoustics. Noise Impact Study – Shephard North Project, City of Clovis, California. February 21, 2023.
Meighan, Clement W. 1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity 24(3): 289-318.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York. 893
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 2015. NASA:
Background Ozone is a Major Issue in U.S. West. Available:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4723
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 19, 2022.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Series Classification Database, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/data/?cid=nrcs142p 2_053583, accessed July 19, 2022.
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-snowpack-anddrought-FS.pdf Odell Planning & Research, Inc. (2022). Development Fee Justification Study/ School Facilities Needs Analysis.
Peak & Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Overview for the North Shepard Project, City of Clovis, January 12, 2023.
Placeworks, 2014, City of Clovis General Plan.
Placeworks, 2014, City of Clovis Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
Provost & Pritchard, 2021, City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update.
Provost & Pritchard. (2017). City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III.
Provost & Pritchard, 2019, North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2021). City of Clovis Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020 Update.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2021). City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update.
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. 2022. Water Supply Assessment. Northwest Sphere of Influence Expansion Area.
Riddell, Francis A. and William H. Olsen 1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California.
American Antiquity 34(2): 121-131. Washington, D.C.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3. San Diego.
894
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-11 Rosenthal, Jeffery S., and Jack Meyer 2004 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways, Volume III: Geoarchaeological Study Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record of Central California. Ms. on file, Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact. Available:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/AdoptedPlan.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available: http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-planadopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20bein g%20done%20to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson 1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4): 289-413.
Berkeley.
Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 p.
Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik, Eds. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
Smith, Wallace 1960 Garden of the Sun. Eighth edition. Privately printed.
State of California, Department of Finance. 2022. Report P-1A. Total Population Projections, 2010- 2060 California (2019 Baseline). Available:
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ State of California, Department of Finance. 2022. Report P-2A. Total Population for California and The Growth Alternatives Alliance, April 1998. A Landscape of Choice: Strategies for Improving Patterns of Community Growth
Thompson, Thomas H. 1891 Official Historical Atlas Map of Fresno County. Thomas H. Thompson, Tulare, California.
Vandor, Paul E. 1919 History of Fresno County, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles. 895
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Wedel, Waldo R. 1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. Washington, D.C.
Winchell, Lilbourne Alsip 1933 History of Fresno County and the San Joaquin Valley. Fresno: A. H.
Cawston. Publisher.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Soil Survey for Fresno County, California. 2022.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS). Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020a. Analysis and Projections. Short-term Energy Outlook. Release date: September 9, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020b. California State Energy Profile.
Last updated January 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020c. Independent Statistics and Analysis. Frequently Asked Questions. Last updated September 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basicinformation-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution#Effects United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations – EPA.
Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=91 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. TRI Explorer. 2017 TRI Factsheet:
City – Fresno, CA. Data Source: 2017 Updated Dataset (released April 2019). Available at:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?&pstate=CA&pcity=fresno&pyear= 2017&pParent=TRI&pDataSet=TRIQ1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). Accessed on September 10, 2019. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.
Available: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution 896
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 7.0-13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019b. Health Effects of Ozone In the General Population. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patientshealth/health-effects-ozone-general-population United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019c. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-andenvironmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019d. Basic Information About Lead Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/basic-information-about-leadair-pollution#how University of California, Davis, Riverwash,
https://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc118/Colusa_County/riverwash.html, accessed July 22, 2022.
897
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
7.0 REFERENCES
3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North This page left intentionally blank.
898
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
SHEPHERD NORTH PROJECT
Volume II - Appendices
JULY 2023
Prepared for:
City of Clovis | Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 559.324.2340
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m ATTACHMENT 18
899
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
900
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
SHEPHERD NORTH PROJECT
Volume II - Appendices
JULY 2023
Prepared for:
City of Clovis | Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 559.324.2340
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
901
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
902
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Comments
903
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
904
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
905
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
906
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
907
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
908
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
909
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
910
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
911
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
912
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
913
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
914
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
915
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
916
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
917
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
918
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
919
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
920
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
921
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
922
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
923
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
924
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
925
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
926
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
927
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
928
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
929
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
930
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
931
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
932
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
933
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
934
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
935
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
936
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
937
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
938
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
939
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
940
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
941
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
942
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
943
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
944
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
945
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
946
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
Printed on Recycled Paper
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 18, 2022
Mr. George González
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93611
[email protected]
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHEPHERD NORTH PROJECT – DATED MAY 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022050180)
Dear Mr. González:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shepherd North Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.
DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:
1. The EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight. 947
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.
Mr. George González
May 18, 2022