Fresno City Council
May 26, 2022

1 CITY OF FRESNO

PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, OR ZONING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.

P22-00451

THE PROJECT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS DETERMINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES.

APPLICANT(S): City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION: 255 West Bullard Avenue

Located on the s outhwest corner of W est Bullard and
North Del Mar Avenues (see Figure-1, Figure -2, and
Figure -3).
(APN: 416-020-26) (Council District 4)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezone Application No. P22-00451 was filed by Jennifer Clark of The City of Fresno - Planning and Development
Department and pertains to the 5.57 acres located at 255 West Bullard Avenue. The applicant request to rezone
parcel from PI/cz to PI - removing the conditions of
zoning that restrict site to a school or college. No project is proposed at this time.

This project is analyzed under Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as follows:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was c ertified. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Fresno General Plan, for which an EIR was certified (State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2019050005).

An Environmental Checklist has been prepared to show the project’s consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Streamline Analysis
. The Environmental Checklist
includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or site- specific environmental impacts ass ociated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Fresno development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed project during both the construction and 2 operational p hases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site- specific environmental impacts would occur.

The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations and development intensities assigned to the project site by the City of Fresno General Plan. Cumulative impacts associated with development and buildout of the project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the City of Fresno Program EIR (SCH# 2019050005). Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and development intensity for the site identified in the General Plan and analyzed in the Program EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or altered cumulative impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR.

The analysis in the CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no site- specific or peculiar impacts associated with the project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached environmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed project in order to ensure that any site- specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less -than-significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

Additional supporting evidence for why the project qualifies for a streamline analysis is included in the attached CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Checklist (Appendix G). Furthermore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Section 15183 Streamline Analysis (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning), as noted above, has been prepared for the project.

Date: May 18, 2022

Submitted by:

Will Tackett, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
559-621-8277

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IN SUPPORT OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 STREAMLINE ANALYSIS

Environmental Checklist Form for:

Rezone Application No. P22-00451

1. Project title:

Rezone Application No. P22-00451

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

3. Contact person and phone number:

Jennifer Clark, Director
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8277

4. Project location:
255 W. Bullard Avenue: Southwest corner of West Bullard and North Del Mar Avenues (see Figure-1, Figure -2, and Figure -3).

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

Office Commercial (Bullard Community Plan). Refer to Figure-4

7. Zoning:

PI/cz (Public and Institutional/Conditions of Zoning). Refer to Figure-5

8. Description of project:

Rezone Application No. P22-00451 was filed by Jennifer Clark of The City of Fresno - Planning and Development Department and pertains to the 5.57 acres located at 255 W. Bullard. The applicant request to rezone parcel from PI/cz to PI - removing the conditions of zoning that restrict site to a school or college. No project or new development is proposed at this time. The Project site is 5.57- acre lot currently developed with a vacant two -story building with approximately 37,500 square -feet of 4 floor area that formerly housed a Milan Institute. Milan Institute is an educational facility that holds classes and training programs for cosmetology and other related fields. The Project site also contains a large parking lot improved with sidewalks, trees, and other similar landscaping.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Medium-High
Density Residential Residential Multi-Family,
Medium-High Density
Medium High
Density Residential
East
Medium- Low
Density Residential
Residential Single-Family,
Medium Density Medium Density
Residential
South
Medium-Low
Density Residential
Residential Single-Family,
Medium Density
Medium- Low
Density Residential
West
Professional
Services Office
Commercial
Office Professional
Services Office
Commercial

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Department of Public Utilities

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or,
the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or 5 Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheri a, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

As stated in PRC Section 21080.3.1, California Native American tribes are required to be contacted by the lead agency prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. The City of Fresno has determined the proposed project can be analyzed as a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Streamline and the project does not warrant a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for the proposed project. Thus, the lead agency is not required to conduct tribal consultation pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.3.1.

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT One previous environmental analysis has been prepared and certified which is applicable to the proposed project. On September 30, 2021, the City adopted a new General Plan and certified the associated Program EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2012111015).

The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation of Public and Institutional as described above. The Program EIR (PEIR) assumed full development and buildout of the project site, cons istent with the uses and development standards proposed by the project. The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City of Fresno General Plan, including the project site, were fully addressed in the PEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Streamline
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) w as certified. As noted above, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Fresno General Plan, for which an EIR was certified.

The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.

15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were 6 not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
(d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or
(C) A general plan of a local agency, and (2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. (e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire City or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within t he area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision -making body of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies 7 as permitted in this section.
(g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section.
(1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel.
(2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies wit h the density -related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or site- specific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Fresno development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site- specific environmental impacts would occur. None of the environmental factors below would be 8 affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

As described above, the proposed removal of conditions of zoning is consistent with the land use designations and development intensities assigned to the project site by the City of Fresno General Plan. Cumulative impacts associated with development and buildout of the project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the City of Fresno Program EIR (SCH# 2019050005). Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and development intensity for the site identified in the General Plan and analyzed in the Program EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or altered cumulative impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR.

The analysis in the following CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no site-specific or peculiar impacts associated with the pr oject, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached environmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed project in order t o ensure that any site- specific impacts or construction- related impacts are reduced to a less -than-significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

9 ___________________________________________________________________ Will Tackett, Planning Manager May 18, 2022

EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT ASSESSED IN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2019050005 PREPARED FOR THE APPROVED FRESNO GENERAL PLAN (GP PEIR):

1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:

a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.

b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.

c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.

d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, 10 less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.

If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, P rogram EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged t o incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

1 Figure-1: Regional Vicinity

1 Figure -2: Aerial

1 Figure -3: Topo

1 Figure-4: General Plan Land Use Designation

1 Figure-5: Zoning Designation

1 Figure-6: Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Map

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X

b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X

c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site
and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X

d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint either, naturally occurring or man-made, that would be pleasing to the general public and as a result provides a benefit to the area. Within the Fresno area, scenic vistas include points along the San Joaquin River, views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, views of the downtown Fresno skyline, and historical buildings, many of which are located downtown. Such resources provide a visual benefit to those who have access to them. The Project site is

5.57-acre lot currently developed with a vacant two- story building with approximately 37,500 square-feet of floor area that formerly housed a Milan Institute. Milan Institute is an educational facility that holds classes and training programs for cosmetology and other 2 related fields. The Project site also contains a large parking lot improved with sidewalks, trees, and other similar landscaping. The Project site fronts Bullard Avenue to the north and Del Mar Avenue to the east, neither of which are a scenic corridor. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the Project site. There are no historic buildings located on or near the Project site and the San Joaquin River cannot be seen from the vicinity of the Project as it located approximately 2.5 miles to the north.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with aesthetics that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with aesthetics that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with aesthetics that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact . The Project does not include any development or ground disturbing activities. The Project proposes to rezone the property from PI/CZ to PI. The rezone request would remove the conditions of zoning that restrict the site to a school or college. The Project is developed with a building, a parking lot , and various landscaping improvements. By removing the conditions of zoning, the property would be allowed more uses than currently exist with the existing conditional zoning. These uses may include a hospital, cemetery, church, and other public/quasi-public facilities permitted by the zoning ordinance. Although, additional uses other than a scho ol or college would be allowed, the inte nsity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan and the Bullard Community Plan. The Project would not obstruct any scenic views as none presently exist. Therefore, there would be no impact.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The Project site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway.

The Project site consists of a developed lot and does not contain any scenic resources, nor are there any scenic resources with the close proximity. The Project 3 would not result in any destruction of scenic resources as the Project itself does not contain any construction or ground disturbing activities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

No Impact. The Project site is currently zoned PI/CZ . The conditions of zoning restricted the Project site to allow only a school or college. The Project would remove the conditions to allow all permitted uses in the PI zone district. The Project would not change the current development standards as regulated by the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There would be no impact.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact . The Project does not propose any earthmoving or ground disturbing activities. As mentioned previously, the Project currently contains a vacant building where a Milan Institute used to operate. Any future development would be required to maintain similar regulations regarding lighting and glare. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbo n measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is a developed lot with an existing building, parking lot, and various landscaping improvements. The Project is located in an urbanized environment with residential to the north, east, and south, and commercial buildings adjacent to the west.

Based upon the upon the 2018 Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of the State o f California Department of Conservation, portions of the subject property are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (See Figure-7). 1 Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10- acre parcel.

Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with agricultural that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with agricultural that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with agricultural that are applicable to the Project.

1 (California Department of Conservation, 2016)
6 DISCUSSION

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact . The Project is located within the City of Fresno, which is a densely, urbanized City. The Project site itself is developed with a vacant building that previously was an operating Milan Institute. The surrounding areas are developed with commercial facilities and residential neighborhoods. The Project does not contain farmland and it is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. According to the 2016 Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of the State of California Department of Conservation, the Project site and its vicinity is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land.
2 Therefore, there would be no impact.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The Project site is currently zoned for PI/CZ and the Project itself would remove the conditions of zoning, ultimately resulting in the Project site solely being zoned PI. The Project is not zoned for agricultural uses, and it is not restricted under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there would be no impact.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) ), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. As mentioned previously, the is currently zoned for PI/CZ and the Project would remove the conditions of zoning, unrestricting the site from solely a school and college use. The Project is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production; therefore, there would be no impact.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The Project is not utilized, planned for, or zoned for forest land; therefore, there would be no impact.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could res ult in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

2 (California Department of Conservation, 2016)
7 No Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized environment within the City of Fresno. Viable agricultural land is typically s een on the outskirts of the City, most commonly found in the County, away from the urban center. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. 1 Figure-7: Farmland Map

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X

b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X

c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the CCAA, the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant 2 concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increas ingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”

The State and national attainment status designations pertaining to the SJVAB are summarized in
Table-1. SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the NAAQS 8- hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA re-designated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment status for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.

Table-1: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe – No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3
Nonattainment
–
Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
3 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm
Attainment
53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM –
Attainment
--
Attainment/
Unclassified
24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb)
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment
–
No Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – --
Rolling 3 -Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3) Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl) 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3) Attainment
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction
coefficient: 0.23/km-
visibility of 10 miles
or more due to
particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified

Criteria Pollutants
California’s ambient air monitoring network is one of the most extensive in the world, with 4 more than 250 sites and 700 individual monitors measuring air pollutant levels across a diverse range of topography, meteorology, emissions, and air quality. Existi ng levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the Project are best documented by measurements made by these monitoring sites. The nearest monitoring site to the Project is located at the Fresno-Garland Monitoring Station at 3727 North First Street in Fresno, CA.

The site measures O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Data presented in Table-Error! No text of specified
style in document. 2 summarize monitoring data from the CARB’s Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System for the Fresno- Garland Monitoring Station location published from 2018 to 2020.

Table-Error! No text of specified style in document.2: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Air Pollutant Averaging Time Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone
1-hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.121 0.105 0.119
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 2 0
8-hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) .099 .084 .099
Days > State Standard (0.070 ppm) 38 18 1
Days > National Standard (0.070 ppm) 36 17 1
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM10)
Annual State Annual Average (µg/m3) 40.6 35.9 1
24-hour
National 24 Hour (µg/m3) 298.4 174.2 211.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 130.4 328.2 296.0
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 3 13
Fine
particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual National Annual Average (µg/m3)1 16.6 11.2 19.8
24-hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 95.7 51.3 171.8
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 36 10 1
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1-hour 1 Hour (ppm) 2.1 1.9 5.0
8-hour 8 Hour (ppm) 2.0 1.5 2.5
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 24-hour 24 Hour (ppm) .0072 .0089 .0162

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with air quality that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with air quality that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with air quality 5 that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the air quality management standards. Standards set by the SJVAPCD, CARB, and Federal agencies relating to the Project would continue to apply. The Project does not propose any construct ion or earthmoving activities; therefore, it would not have the potential to obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, there would be no impact

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

No Impact . The Project proposes to solely remove conditions of zoning from the subject property and there would be no construction or earthmoving activities involved.

Therefore, the Project would not result in any net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. There would be no impact.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

No Impact . As the Project does not include construction, development, or any earthmoving activities, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Although the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

No Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project does not include any construction or earthmoving activities. As such, the Project would not r esult in other emissions affecting a substantial number of people. There would be no impact.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X

d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
7 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located in The City of Fresno within Fresno County, within the lower San Joaquin Valley, part of the Great Valley of California. The Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north, and the Transverse Ranges and Mojave Desert to the south.

Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate.

Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.

The City of Fresno’s Planning Area consists predominately of urban areas, which are concentrated in the central portion of the Planning Area, within the City of Fresno. The Project site is 5.57 -acre lot cur rently developed with a vacant two- story building with approximately 37,500 square- feet of floor area. The Project site also contains a large parking lot striped with 516 parking spaces encompassing the entirety of the project site excepting the building f ootprint area, parking lot median/end -row island planters which contain intermittent shade trees, and peripheral landscaped buffer areas along the property line boundaries and street frontages (a 5-foot wide buffer has been provided along the westerly property line; a 15-foot wide buffer is provided along the length of the Del Mar Avenue street frontage; and, 20-foot wide buffers are provided along the Bullard Avenue street frontage and southerly property line adjacent to existing single- family residences). The Project site is fully improved and has been highly disturbed as a result of development. Urban land provides poor quality habitat for any special -status species. 8 Special-status species are unlikely to occur within the Project site and vicinity. are unlikely to occur within this vegetation community.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with biological resources that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with biological resources that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with biological resources that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. No construction or physical change in the environment would result from the Project. In addition, the Project would not conflict with any local or regional plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, there would be no impact.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS. The Project would not conflict with any regional plan, policy, or regulation governing riparian habitats or other natural sensitive communities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 9 No Impact . The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means. The Project would not result in any construction or physical change in the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife c orridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project proposes to solely remove conditions of zoning from the subject property. No additional facilities would be built. Therefore, there would be no impact.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact . The Project would not interfere with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Vegetation or tree removal are not part of Project activities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. Since there is no construction or earthmoving activities associated with the Project, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation P lan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X

b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

X

c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources.

As defined by CEQA, historical resources include sites, structures, objects, or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with cultural resources that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with cultural resources that are applicable to the Project.

11 Local

City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the city. The following objective and policies related to cultural resources are presented in the General Plan:
• Objective HCR ‐1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resources.
• Objective HCR‐2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.
o Policy HCR ‐2‐a: Identification and Designation of Historic Properties.

Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate.

City of Fresno Municipal Code

Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City of Fresno has established a Historic Preservation Commission and a Local Register of Historic Resources (Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16). The Ordinance is used to provide local levels of control over the historical aesthetics of cultural resources withi n the city, and to ensure that the potential impact to locally significant historical resources that may be the subject of redevelopment are given reasonable consideration. The purpose of the Ordinance is to:
[…] continue to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; to continue to protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special hist oric, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; to continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the city’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; to continue to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development. (Article 16 Section 12-1602(a).) The Ordinance provides legislative mechanisms to protect certain historical resources.

Local registers of identified historical resources are known, including:

1. Heritage Properties. These ar e defined as a resource which is worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural or aesthetic merit but which is not proposed for and is not designated as an Historic Resource under the ordinance.

2. Historic Resources. These are defined as any building, structure, object or site that has been in existence more than fifty years and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and is associated 12 with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city history, or is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history; and has been designated as such by the Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance.

3. Local Historic Districts. These are defined as any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The Local Historic District must be significant as well as identifiable and it must meet Local Register Criteria for listing on that Register.

Contributors to Historic Districts are defined as any Historic Resource that contributes to the significance of the specific Local Historic District or a proposed National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.

4. National Register Historic Districts, which shall mean any finite group of resources r elated to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A National Register Historic District must be significant as well as identifiable and it must meet National Register Criteria for listing on that Register. Contributors to a National Register Historic District are defined as any individual Historic Resource which contributes to the significance of a National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.

5. Certified Local Government. The Certified Local Government (CLG) Program is administered by the State Historic P reservation Office ( SHPO). When a Lead Agency becomes a CLG it agrees to carry out the intent of and serve as a local steward of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In meeting those standards, OHP serves as an advisor. The use of the National Register/California Register criteria and the Secretary of the Interior Standards integrates local, state, and federal levels of review. It brings clarity to the question of what resources are significant when it comes to CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The City has been certified as a CLG since September 1996.

13 DISCUSSION

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

No Impact. The Project would not require, nor induce, any new surface disturbing activities such as construction. Therefore, there would be no substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical or archeological resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines in Section 15064.5.

There are no individual historic-era structures or facilities, or such features which are contributors to a historic district or landscape located on the project site that are either presumptive resources or considered potentially eligible, or which are designated or listed on a local, state or federal inventory.

The Project does not involve any new construction or earthmoving activities.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

No Impact . The Project does not involve any new construction or earthmoving activities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

No Impact. The Project does not involve any construction or earthmoving activities.

The Project would not require any construction activities or the need to use temporary or permanent equipment to carry out the Project’s intent. Therefore, there would be no impact

14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VI. ENERGY – Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) supplies electricity and natural gas to the Project site.

PG&E obtains its power through hydroelectric, thermal (natural gas), wind, and solar generation or via purchase. PG&E continually produces new electric generation and natural gas sources and implements improvements to gas lines throughout its service areas to ensure the provision of services to customers.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with energy that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with energy resources that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with energy resources that are applicable to the Project.

Local

Fresno Council of Governments 2018 – 2042 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a comprehensive assessment of all forms of transportation available in Fresno County and of the needs for travel and goods 15 movement. The 2014 RTP contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by SB 375. Enacted in 2008, SB 375 requires that each Metropolitan Planning Organization include an SCS that provides an integrated land use and transportation plan for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

In June 2018, Fresno COG adopted the 2018- 2042 RTP/SCS. The Draft 2018- 2042 RTP/SCS charts the 25-year course of transportation to 2042 to address greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other air emissions. The RTP is made up of a variety of different elements or chapters, and each element is augmented by additional documentation. The RTP also contains a chapter that establishes the SCS to show how integrated land use and transportation planning can lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions from autos and light trucks, as well as improve overall quality of life in the region.

City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno implements the following policies that are applicable to the Project related to energy consumption:

16 Chapter 7, Resource Conservation and Resilience

RC-8-b Energy Reduction Targets . Strive to reduce per capita residential electricity use to 1,800 kWh per year and non- residential electricity use to 2,700 kWh per year per capita by developing and implementing incentives, design and operation standards, promoting alternative energy sources, and cost-effective savings.

DISCUSSION

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

Less than Significant Impact . The Project does not involve any construction or earthmoving activities. The Project site would continue to utilize PG&E for its energy and any future use, as permitted in the PI zone district, woul d remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

No Impact. The Project would not c onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency . The Project proposes to remove zoning restrictions placed on the Project site. There would be no impact.

17 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

X

i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X

d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Geology and Soils
The Project is located in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley, directly adjacent to the south of a portion of the San Joaquin River. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province.

Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the uplifted Sierra Nevada Range.3 From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments i n the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.

Faults and Seismicity
Most of Fresno is situated within an area of relatively low seismic activity and is not located within a known active earthquake fault zone. The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Fresno.4 The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 70 miles southwest of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The San Joaquin Fault is located over 50 miles west of the Project site.

Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, w hich is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity

3 (Harden, 1998)
4 (California Department of Conservation, 2015)
19 of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Fresno County, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high- water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too course.

Furthermore, the average depth to groundwater within the City of Fresno is approximately 85 to 95 feet which also minimizes liquefaction potential.

Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over -saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Fresno County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Fresno’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged.

Dam and Levee Failure
Hundreds of dams and reservoirs have been built in California for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric power, and recreational uses. The storage capacity of these dams varies across the State from large reservoirs with capacities exceeding millions of acre- feet (AF) to small reservoirs with capacities from hundreds to thousands of AF. Depending on the season, water from these reservoirs is released into the river system of the Stat e and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean. The San Joaquin River, located at the north edge of the City of Fresno, is the primary river in the vicinity. The San Joaquin River is impounded by a dam which forms the 520 thousand acre- feet Lake Millerton, approximately 13 miles northeast of the Project site. If Friant dam were to fail, a large portion of Fresno County, including the City of Fresno, would be inundated with water.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

20 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

a i -iv) No Impact . The Project would not require any construction or earthmoving activities. The Project proposes to remove the conditions of zoning placed on the Project site. Due to the nature of the Project, there would be no potential for seismic related events caused by ground disturbing activities, nor would the Project increase the risk for landslides in the Project vicinity There would be no impact.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

No Impact . The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. There is no construction or soil disturbance as part of Project activities.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

No Impact . The Project would not create or cause soil to become unstable. No structures would be constructed as part of this Project and there would be no ground disturbance. Therefore, there would be no impact.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

No Impact . The Project does not propose construction or any ground disturbing activities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. The Project does not include the use or installation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact. 21 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

No Impact . The Project would not involve any new construction or ground disturbance; therefore, there would not be potential to uncover any historical, paleontological, or cultural resources. There would be no impact.

22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:

Carbon dioxide (CO
2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following:
decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Methane (CH
4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.

Nitrous oxide (N
2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.

Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone (O
3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short -lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, 23 nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.

Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents.

CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF
6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. About three- quarters of human emissions of CO 2 to
the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, CH4, and N 2O have increased 31 percent, 151 percent, and 17 percent respectively since the year 1750 (CEC 2008). GHG emiss ions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide- equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas 24 molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH 4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 21 tons of CO 2. Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with greenhouse gases that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with greenhouse gases that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with greenhouse gases that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
a) No Impact. Currently the existing development on the site generates greenhouse emissions. Implementation of the Project would not change the number of emissions, as they would stay the same. The Project does not include construction or earthmoving activities. There would be no impact.

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

b) No Impact. Currently the existing development on the site generates greenhouse emissions. Implementation of the Project would not change the number of emissions, as they would stay the same. The Project does not include construction or earthmoving activities . Given that the Project proposes no changes to the same circumstances discussed, evaluated, and cumulatively analyzed under the prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan and community plan, and no substantial new information is available relative to the scope of the Project, the Project would not conflict with an ap plicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. There would be no impact.

25 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X

b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X

d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
26 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X

g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.

Government C ode Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non- UST cleanup programs, including Spills -Leaks- Investigations-Cleanups (SLI C) sites, Department of Defense (DOD) sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on March 9, 2022, determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site.5

Airports
The Project is located approximately four miles from both the Sierra Sky Park Airport and the Fresno- Yosemite International Airport. The Sierra Sky Park Airport is located northwest of the Project and Fresno -Yosemite International Airport is located to the southeast of the Project. The Project is located within the Precision Approach Zone of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, as noted within the Fresno County, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2020); (State of California, 2020) 27 Emergency Response Plan
The City’s Emergency Preparedness Officer is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up- to-date and implemented properly. The Emergency Preparedness Officer facilitates cooperation between C ity departments and other local, State and federal agencies, including Fresno County. The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational Area Master Plan.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors within the Project’s vicinity consist of residential areas to the north, east, and south and commercial facilities to the west the Project site. No other identified concentrations of sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, nur sing homes, or schools are within the Project’s vicinity

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

No Impact . No unanticipated construction or land alterations are involved.

Additionally, there would be no transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.

Therefore, there is nothing applicable to any hazardous material with the Project. As such, there would be no impact to the public or the environment.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

No Impact . The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as the Project would not discharge hazardous materials into the 28 environment. As such, there would be no impact to the environment.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact . The Project does not include activities that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or substances. No construction is associated with Project activities and therefore no construction equipment would be used. As such, there would be no impact of hazardous emissions, materials, or substances, to any schools nearby existing or proposed school.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

There would be no impact.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use air port, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Less than Significant Impact . Although the Project is located within the Precision Approach Zone of the Fresno- Yosemite International Airport , the Projec t is already developed and does not include construction. The Project’s intent is to remove the conditions of zoning from the Project site, so the site is not limited to solely a school or college. The Project site would be permitted to be developed to all uses allowed in the PI zone district. Development standards such as building height would be the same as currently allowed for the Project site. In addition, the Project site would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less than Significant Impact . The City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) implements an all -hazards approach to emergency response to ensure the City of Fresno receives effective protection form the risk of hazardous materials releases. Both the City and the County of Fresno implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Planning Area described in the prior EIR. The plan prescribes the roles of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and coordination that occurs between the 29 EOC, City Departments and other response agenc ies. In addition, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) is the system required by Government Code Section 8607(a) for managing response to multi -agency and multi-jurisdication emergencies in California.

The Project would remove the condit ions of zoning from the Project site, ultimately allowing additional uses that are currently permitted in the PI zone district. Although the Project site, after implementation of the Project, could result in additional uses, these uses would remain consistent with what is and was considered, discussed, and analyzed by the prior EIR for the General Plan land use designation and implementing zone district resultant from the respective prior zoning action. No substantial new information which was not known at the time the prior EIR was certified is available.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

No Impact. The Project site is currently served by the City of Fresno Fire Department for its fire protection needs. The Project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area. Impacts would remain consistent to the existing baseline; therefore, there would be no impact.

30 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X

b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X

c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

X

i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
X

ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

X

iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X

iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X

e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The City of Fresno overlies the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (SJV Basin). The Kings Subbasin underlies Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties and has a surface area of 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles). The Kings Subbasin has not been adjudicated. The Department of Water Resources classified the Kings Basin as being in a state of critical overdraft in its Bulletin 118-80. 6 The SJV Basin comprises the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California and is bounded to the north by the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevadas, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges.

The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the SJV Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium -granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and to the west by the Delta- Mendota and Westside Subbasins.

The Kings Subbasin is bounded to the south by the northern boundary of the Empire West Side Irrigation District, the southern fork of the Kings River, the southern boundary of the Laguna Irrigation District, the northern boundary of the Kings County Water District, and the western boundary of Stone Corral Irrigation District.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with hydrology

6 (State of California Department of Water Resources)
32 and water quality that are applicable to the Project.

Local

City of Fresno General Plan: The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. The following policy related is presented in the General Plan:

Chapter 7, Resource Conservation and Resilience

Policy RC‐6‐c: Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025.

DISCUSSION

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

No Impact. The Project site is developed with a vacant building that used to operate as a Milan Institut e, which held courses for various cosmetology related disciplines.

The Project would not involve any construction or earthmoving activities. The Project proposes to remove the conditions of zoning from the Project site so that it has the potential to be developed with other uses permitted by the PI zone district. Currently the Project site is zone PI/CZ, being conditionally zoned for only a school or college use. Even though the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. There would be no impact.

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

No Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project site is currently developed, and the Project would not involve additional development. E ven though the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan . There would be no impact.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 33 ii. Substantially increase the rate or amoun t of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

c i-iv) No Impact. Grading or construction activities are not part of the Project.

Roads, staging areas, or other ground disturbing activities that cause erosion and siltation are also not part of this Project. Therefore, drainage patterns would not be altered and there would be no surface runoff adding sources of pollutants or impediments of water flows as a result of transferring water through existing waterways. As such, there would be no impact.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

No Impact. The Project does not involve construction and the Project site is already developed. Any impacts related to flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiche zones would not be anticipated. There would be no impact.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

No Impact . As discussed previously, the Project proposes to remove the existing conditions of zoning on the property to allow the full scope of permitted uses in the PI zone district. Currently, the Project site is only permitted for school or college uses.

No development or earthmoving activities would take place. As such, there would be no impact.

34 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established
community?
X

b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is currently a developed lot. To the north, east, and south are residential uses and to the west lies commercial buildings. The existing land use for the Project site is Professional Services Office Commercial and the existing zoning is Public and Institutional/Conditions of Zoning.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with land use and planning that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with land use and planning that are applicable to the Project.

Local

City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. The following objective and policies are presented in the General Plan:

LU-1-c: Provision of Public Facilities and Services. Promote orderly land use development in pace with public facilities and services needed to serve development.

LU-8-c: Zoning for Public Facilities. Allow public facility uses in zoning districts where appropriate.
35 LU-8: Provide for the development of civic and institutional land uses to meet the educational, medical, social, economic, cultural, and religious needs of the community.

DISCUSSION

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact . The Project is located within the City of Fresno, which is a densely populated and densely developed urban environment. The Project site itself is developed with a vacant building, parking lot, and various landscaping improvements.

Until recently, a Milan Institute which was permitted with the PI/CZ zone district was in operation . As the Project proposes to remove conditions of zoning, the Project would not divide an established community. There would be no impact.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan as the General Plan and Bullard Community Plan designate the Project site for Professional Services Office Commercial. This land use designation is compatible with both the current PI/CZ zone district and the proposed PI zone district. Therefore, there would be no impact.

36 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X

b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project is located in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. Historically, Fresno County has been a leading producer of a variety of minerals including aggregate, fossil fuels, metals, and other materials used in construction or in industrial processes. The nearest aggregate mining facility is approximately 5.3 miles northeast of the Project site, located at 11599 North Friant Road. Currently, aggregate and petroleum are the County’s most significant mineral resources.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with mineral resources that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with mineral resources that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with mineral resources that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
37 a) No Impact. The re are no known mineral resources on the Project site that would be of value to the region and the resident of the state. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The nearest mining facility is located approximately 5.3 miles northeast of the Project site. As the Project is not located in an area determined to be of value for mineral resources and no construction or earthmoving activities would be proposed, there would be no impact.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

b) No Impact. The Project site is not designated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. As the Project is not located in an area determined to be of value for mineral resources and no construction or earthmoving activities would be proposed, there would be no loss in the availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there would be no impact.

38 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X

b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X

c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project is located approximately four miles from both the Sierra Sky Park Airport and the Fresno- Yosemite International Airport. The Sierra Sky Park Airport is located northwest of the Project and Fresno- Yosemite International Airport is located to the southeast of the Project. The Project is located within the Precision Approach Zone of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, as noted within the Fresno County, ALUCP.

California State Route (SR) 41 located approximately 0. 5 miles east is identified in the Fresno General Plan as a significant transportation noise source within the Project area.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with noise that are applicable to the Project.

39 State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with noise that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with noise that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

No Impact. The Proposal would not require any construction or earthmoving activities that would generate noise. The Project would remove the conditions of zoning from the current zoning designation for the Project site. Any future development would be consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. There would be no impact.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

No Impact. The Proposal would not require any construction or earthmoving activities; therefore, it would not generate groundborne vibration or grounborne noise. There would be no impact.

c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mile s of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. Although the Project is located within the Precision Approach Zone of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, the Project is already developed and does not include construction. The Project’s intent is to remove the conditions of zoning from the Project site, so the site is not limited to solely a school or college. There would be no impact.

40 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X

b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The existing site does not contain residential dwelling units and is not planned or zoned for residential uses. The Project site is developed with a building that previously operated as a cosmetology school. Residences lie immediately to the north, east, and south of the Project site.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population and housing that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population and housing that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population and housing are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
41 Less than Significant Impact. Currently, the Project site is developed with a vacant building that previously operated as a Milan Institute. The Milan Institute has since changed locations and the existing building on the subject property is not in operation.

The Project would remove the conditions of zoning placed on the Project site to allow all permitted uses allowed by the PI zone district. Although the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The Project site is currently planned and zoned for public facility and public institution uses. The Project is not planned or zoned for residential uses. In addition, the Project does not propose any construction or earthmoving activities. Therefore, the Project would not displace s ubstantial numbers of existing people or housing.

There would be no impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
i
n order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X
42 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

Other public facilities? X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located at the intersection of W. Bullard Avenue and N. Del Mar Avenue. It is an approximately 5.57- acre lot developed with a vacant building, a parking lot, and various landscaping improvements. The Project site is served by Fire Station 11, Fresno Unified School District, and the Northwest Policing District.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with public services that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with public services that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with public services that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?
The subject property is located approximately one mile from Fire Station 11.

The City of Fresno Fire Department operates its facilities under the guidance set by the National Fire Protection Association in NFPA 1710, the Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Speci al Operation to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 sets standards for turnout time, travel time, and total 43 response time for fire and emergency medical incidents, as well as other standards for operation and fire service. The Fire Department has established the objectives set forth in NFPA 1710 as department objectives to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare.

According to the Fresno General Plan PEIR, development impact fees are currently collected for the provision of capital facili ties for fire facilities that will provide for future facilities as the City’s population increases. Recognizing that there would be an increased demand for fire and emergency medical response, the General Plan Update includes several policies to support the activities of the Fresno Fire Department. The policies and objectives from the General Plan will ensure that the proposed project does not significantly affect fire protection. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact for fire protection.

ii. Police protection?
City police protection services are also available to serve the proposed project with no new facilities required for police protection. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact for police protection.

iii. Schools?
The proposed Public and I nstitutional use would have a less than significant impact to the District’s student classroom capacity. If applicable, the future developer will pay appropriate school fees at time of building permits. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the school districts capacity.

iv. Parks?
The subject property is located within 0.25 miles of Barstow and Del Mar (F) park owned by the Fresno M etropolitan Flood Control District. The proposed application does not include uses that would significantly increase the use of park and recreation facilities in the area. Demand for parks generated by the project is within planned services levels of the City of Fres no Parks and Community Services Department, the applicant for future development will pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on nearby parks.

v. Other public facilities?

a. Less than Significant Impact.

The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services are available to serve the project site subject to implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies and the mitigation measures of the related MEIR; and, the construction and installation of public facilities and infrastructure in accordance with Department of Public Works standards, specifications and policies.
44 Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies and the mitigation measures of the associated MEIR, along with the implementation of the Water Resources Management Plan, would ensure drainage impacts are less than significant. Instillation of these services with meters future development and payment of applicable Water Capacity Charges will provide an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subject site is not located within a flood prone or hazard area, necessitating appropriate floodplain management action. The project site is mostly flat and the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The project site does not have a stream or river. The project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The storm drainage plan will be supported by engineering calculations to ensure that the project does not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on public utilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X

b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

45 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is served by the City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS). The City maintains approximately 1,617 acres of open space, nearly 230,000 square feet of building space dedicated to recreational/educational purposes distributed among 104 sites. Other facilities include nine community pools, four splash parks, 518 picnic tables, 153 barbeque grills, three amphitheaters, 54 baseball/softball fields, 53 football/soccer fields, 40 basketball courts, 11 volleyball courts, 40 tennis courts, 7 skate parks, and 5 dog parks. The park system also provides and maintains 115 acres of paths and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. 7 The closest park to the Project site is the Basin Park, located approximately 0.25 miles to the south.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with recreation that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with recreation that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with recreation that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. As the Project does not include any construction and the Project site does not contain residential uses which could increase the use of recreational facilities, there would be no impact.

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact . The Project does not i nclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities . Therefore, there would be no

7 (Development and Resource Management Department and Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, 2014) 46 impact.

47 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X

c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X

d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located at the intersection of W. Bullard Avenue and N. Del Mar Avenue. In addition, the Project site is approximately 0.5 miles west of the SR 41. The Project is also equidistant from the Sierra Sky Park Airport and the Fresno- Yosemite International Airport at four miles away.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with transportation are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with transportation that are applicable to the Project.

Local

City of Fresno General Plan.

48 LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.

DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

No Impact. The Project is currently a developed parcel that contains a building, a parking lot, and various landscaping improvements. The Project is located near the intersection of W. Bullard Avenue and N. Del Mar Avenue, which are public streets.

The Project proposes a rezone to remove the conditions of zoning that limit the parcel to only a use for a college or school. The Project does not require any construction or earthmoving activities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities . There would be no impact. Additionally, Staff conducted a search using the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Tool to determine the VMT for this rezone project. The City of Fresno’s adopted thresholds, effective on July 1, 2020, for development projects correspond to the regional thresholds set by the Fresno COG.

The proposed project is eligible to screen out because the project site is designated as a Low (Less than 13%) Vehicle Miles Traveled Zone per the Fresno COG screening
map (see Figure-6) and would be considered to have a less than significant impact on regional VMT.

In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).”

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

No Impact. The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The Project is located within the center of the City of Fresno and is currently developed. The Project does not include any new development on the site. There would be no impact.

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g ., farm equipment)?

No Impact . As noted previously, the Project does not include any construction or earthmoving activities; therefore, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. There would be no impact. 49 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. As the Project does not include construction or earthmoving activities, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Project is currently developed and is in compliance with regulations regarding emergency access and safety. There would be no impact.

50 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of t he size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Nat
ive American
tribe, and that is:

X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
s
ection 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X

BASELINE CONDITIONS

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with tribal cultural resources that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with tribal 51 cultural resources that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with tribal cultural resources that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

No Impact. There are no known tribal cultural resources located on the project site that are either presumptive resources or considered potentially eligible, nor are there any tribal cultural resource sites which are designated or listed on a local, state or federal inventory. Considering the lack of construction or earthwork activities, that no vegetation would be removed, no landmarks or building would be altered, and that the Project would only rezone the property to remove conditions of zoning, there would be no i mpact to Tribal resources.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No Impact . As stated above, the lack of c onstruction activities prevents the disturbance of any potential tribal resources as a result of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

52 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X

b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X

c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X

d) 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?
X

e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Department of Public Utilities is organized into four divisions: Water Division, 53 Wastewater Management, Utilities Billing & Collection, and Solid Waste.

The Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system, delivering drinking water to about 500,000 urban residential, commercial, and industrial customers in over 114 square miles of the city and many county islands within the City’s Sphere of Influence.
8 The City of Fresno’s Wastewater Management Division provides high-quality wastewater collection, treatment, and reclamation services in a professional and competitive manner in order to preserve the environment and ensure the health, safety, and economic vitality of the community.
9 Utilities Billing and Collection is a Division of the Department of Public Utilities and is directly responsible for the billing and collection of the City of Fresno’s utilities fees and charges.
10 Solid Waste Management Division ensures the preservation of our community’s environment, collects and manages green waste, refuse, and recyclables in a professional, safe and efficient manner through teamwork, education, and high quality service.
11 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with utilities and service systems that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with utilities and service systems that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with utilities and service systems that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

8 (City of Fresno, n.d.)
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
54 No Impact. The Project does not include the relocation of a new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. There would be no impact.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

No Impact. The Project site is currently devel oped and has sufficient water supplies for its current use. The Project proposes to remove the conditions of zoning from the property so that it is not restricted for only a school or college. Although the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. Due to the Project’s lack of development or earthmoving activities, there would be no impact.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment prov ider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. The Project solely proposes to remove the conditions of zoning f rom the property so that it is not restricted for only a school or college. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. There would be no impact.

d) 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?

No Impact. The Project would not generate solid waste; therefore, the Project would not
generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards. In addition, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals . There would be no impact.

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact . The Project site is currently developed with a vacant building. Until recently, the vacant building was utilized as a Milan Institute , which complied with all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project does not propose development, but does allow additional uses to be allowed, as permitted by the PI zone district. Although the types of uses allowed would be expanded under the zoning, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. There would be no 55 impact.

56 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X

c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X

d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

BASELINE CONDITIONS
The Project site is located in the City of Fresno, approximately 0.5 miles west of SR 41.

The Project site is in an urbanized setting surrounded by development. The Project site would be served by the City of Fresno for its fire protection needs and is not located in an area on or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). 12 In addition, the Project site is in an urbanized setting that is not on or near land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity

12 (ArcGIS, n.d.)
57 Zone.13 The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 17 miles northeast near Millerton Lake.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with wildfire that are applicable to the Project.

State
There are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with wildfire that are applicable to the Project.

Local
There are no local regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with wildfire that are applicable to the Project.

DISCUSSION

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

a-d) No Impact. The Project is served by the City of Fresno Fire Department and is not located in a State Responsibility Area. Also, the Project is not located in an area determined to be a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project does not propose any new construction or earthmov ing activities. The Project proposes a rezone of the subject property to remove the conditions of zoning designation. The removal of the conditions of zoning would, in turn, allow for allow additional uses as permitted by the Public and Institutional zone district. Although the number of uses

13 (ArcGIS, n.d.)
58 would increase, the intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the General Plan. There would be no impact.

59 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples o f
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X

b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X

c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p lant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or 60 restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

No Impact . The Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, 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 or elimin ate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

No Impact . The Project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Project would rezone a 5.57-acre property to remove conditions of zoning so that the subject property is not restricted to only be developed as a school or college. Implementation of the Project would zone the property to its base zone district, which is PI. The intensity of development would remain consistent with what is considered by the adopted General Plan and Bullard Community Plan.

There would be no impact.

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

No Impact. The Project would rezone a 5.57- acre property to remove conditions of zoning so that the subject property is not restricted to only be developed as a school or college. Implementation of the Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.