Fresno City Council
June 9, 2022

WATER WELL PUMP STATION NO. 372
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P19-04891

INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Project Sponsor:

City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities
Utilities Planning & Engineering (UP&E)
2101 G Street Bldg. A
Fresno, CA 93706

Lead Agency:

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

Prepared by:

Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721

June 21, 2021

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Negative Declaration ................................................................................................... 3 Initial Study .................................................................................................................. 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................ 11 Project Overview .................................................................................................... 13 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 13 Existing Setting ...................................................................................................... 15

1. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 15

2. Surrounding Conditions ................................................................................ 15

3. Land Use Designation ................................................................................... 15

4. Zoning Designation ....................................................................................... 15 Project Description ................................................................................................. 18

1. Project Entitlements ...................................................................................... 18

2. Project Construction and Phasing ................................................................. 18

3. Site Preparation ............................................................................................ 18

4. Project Components ..................................................................................... 18 Required Project Approvals ................................................................................... 25 Environmental Checklist ......................................................................................... 25

1. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................... 28

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES........................................ 33

3. AIR QUALITY –............................................................................................. 37

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 46

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 50

6. ENERGY ....................................................................................................... 52

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................ 56

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................... 61

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL .................................................. 71

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................ 80

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 2

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................ 88

12. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 90

13. NOISE ........................................................................................................... 92

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................... 98

15. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................... 100

16. RECREATION ............................................................................................ 103

17. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................... 105

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................ 115

20. WILDFIRE ................................................................................................... 120

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE........................................... 123 References .............................................................................................................. 126 Report Preparation .................................................................................................. 128 Appendix A: CalEEMOD Results Summary (Annual & BAU) .................................. 129 Appendix B: Biological Resources Memo ................................................................ 130 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Memo ................................................................... 131 Appendix D: MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist ................................... 132

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 3
Negative Declaration

Lead Agency:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8277

Project Name: Water Well Pump Station No. 372

Project Location: The Project is located at 3709 S. Northpointe Drive, Fresno, CA on the northwest corner of S. Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E . Central Avenue and E. North Avenue. (APN: 330-021-75ST)

Project Description: Development Permit Application No. P19 -04891 was filed by Lito Bucu of the City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities, Utilities Planning & Engineering (Applicant). The Applicant proposes to construct a water supply well at Pump Station 372 (Project). The Project entails drilling a new water well, construction of a perimeter chain link fencing, a 29’ X 9 ’-4” equipment building to house electrical panels and chemical injection equipment, a telemetry antenna, and installation of landscaping for screening.

The site is sized and configured to accept future installation of an emergency generator and water treatment facilities including an iron and manganese filtration system, granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment system, and a de-aeration tank, if deemed necessary.

Environmental Determination: The City of Fresno has conducted an Initial Study, presented on the following pages, that considers the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declar ation for the above-described Project. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration is tiered from Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan. A copy of the MEIR may be reviewed in the City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department as noted above (See Lead Agency).

The Project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21157.1 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section15177, this Project has been evaluated with respect to each City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 4
item on the attached environmental checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment which was not previously examined in the MEIR. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the MEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157.6(b)(1), the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, as Lead Agency , finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the MEIR was certified as complete, has become available.

This completed environmental impact checklist form and its associated narrative reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the Project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.

All new development activity and many non -physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this Project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.

Based upon the evaluation guided by the environmental checklist form, it was determined that there are no foreseeable impacts from the Project that are additional to those identified in the MEIR, and/or impacts which require mitigation measures not included in the MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist.

The completed environmental checklist form indicates whether an impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.

For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent in the nature and magnitude of the Project or may be related to the design and characteristics of the individual project. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and have been mitigated to the extent feasible. With the Project-specific mitigation City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 5
imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this Project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the MEIR. Both the MEIR mitigation checklist measures and the project -specific mitigation checklist measures will be imposed on this Project.

The Initial Study has concluded that the Project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. The finding i s, therefore, made that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Jose Valenzuela, Planner III Date
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 6
Initial Study
This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., CEQA Guidelines Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations.

Project Title Water Well Pump Station No. 372
(Development Permit Application No. P19-04891)
Lead
Agency
Name and
Address
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact
Person and
Phone
Number
Jose Valenzuela, Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8070
Project
Location
3709 S. Northpointe Drive, Fresno, CA: northwest corner of S.

Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E Central Avenue and E North Avenue. (APN: 330-021-75ST)
Project
Sponsor’s
Name and
Address
Lito Bucu
City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities, UP&E
2101 G Street Bldg A
Fresno, CA 93706
Land Use
Designation
(General
Plan and
Community
Plan)

Employment – Heavy Industrial (No Change)
Zoning
Designation
IH – Heavy Industrial (No Change)
Project
Description
Development Permit Application No. P19-04891 was filed by City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities, UP&E. The applicant proposes to construct a water supply well at Pump Station 372 (“Project”). The Project entails drilling a new water well, construction of a perimeter chain link fence a 29’ X 9’-4” equipment building to house electrical panels and chemical injection equipment, a telemetry antenna, and installation of frontage landscaping for screening. The site is sized a nd configured to City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 7
accept future installation of an emergency generator and water treatment facilities including an iron and manganese filtration system, granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment system, and a de -aeration tank, if deemed necessary. This fu ture project component is included in this analysis.

Water Well Pump Station No. 372 will pump ground water into the City's water distribution system. The site has been sized and configured to accept water remediation facilities, primarily an Iron and Manganese Filtration system and Granulated Activated Carb on (GAC) treatment system. These facilities may be installed at some time in the future if synthetic organic compounds, such as agricultural pesticides (DBCP, EDB, etc.) or industrial solvents (PCE, TCP, etc.) are detected in the groundwater at significant concentrations. The use of GAC to adsorb organic compounds is well documented and has been identified by the EPA and California Department of Health Services (CDHS) as the Best Available Technology for this application. Since GAC will support a normally benign bacterial growth the UP&E may disinfect the treated effluent with a chlorine solution or ultra -violet (U.V.) should a GAC systems be required in the future.

The well will be active at all times ready to serve but will only pump water when demand exist which is typically early morning and afternoon. The site will be secured most of the time, UP&E operations and maintenance crews will access the site a few times week to deliver disinfection chemicals and perform routine maintenance.

The Parcel was created by deed through conveyance to a Public Entity.

A 900 -feet deep Test Bore and Monitoring Wells were completed between December 11, 2017 and December 22, 2017.

The UP&E proposes to complete this well site's development in the following three phases.

Phase 1: Well Construction

1. Well Drilling: A borehole is drilled with reverse rotary drilling equipment and the well casing, gravel pack, and cement sanitary seal are installed.

2. Well Development: A well development tool is used to clean the City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 8
drilling fluids and fines such as clay and silts from the water bearing strata. Additional development is accomplished by pumping and surging large quantities of water from the wel l. A 24 -hour pump test is then performed.

3. Equipment Installation: The pumping equipment (vertical turbine pump, column, shaft, electrical motor) and power supply (transformer and control panel) are installed. The well is disinfected and tested for bacterial and general water quality. At this point, the well is connected to the water main. The pump and other facilities are equipped to prevent public exposure to moving parts and electrical hazards. The pump station is then ready for operation. Construction of the pump station will take place in accordance with Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (archaeological resources) and all applicable local ordinances and regulations.

Phase 2: Site Improvements

1. Perimeter Fence and Landsca ping: The pump station will be surrounded by a maximum seven-foot-tall chain link fencing and landscaped per the attached site plan. The landscaping will mature within five (5) years to screen equipment, including treatment facilities.

The landscaping will be completed within six months of occupancy or at a time specified by the Development Department.

2. Other Site Improvements: If not existing, typical public works improvements, such as curb and gutter, lighting, street paving, sidewalks, etc. will be constructed within six months of the date development of surrounding public works improvements reach well site. In any event, these improvements shall be consistent with the conditions of the special permit.

3. Iron Manganese Filtration System: An Iron an d Manganese Filtration system may be installed on the site. A filtration system designed and built as a package will be utilized for this Pump Station. Treatment will commence after installation of the facility. A similar system has been previously approved and operated at Pump Station 369 located at 11251 N. Alicante Drive. See exhibit A for additional information regarding Iron Manganese Treatment Filtration.

Phase 3: GAC Treatment Systems
If required to address water contamination, GAC vessels will be installed on the site. Preparation shall include construction of facilities consistent City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9
with the special permit. Treatment will commence after installation of vessels and the GAC. Additional information regarding the GAC system operations including carbon change out procedure is available in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment No. C - 90-40 (available in the offices of the Development Department) which is incorporated by reference into this statement as if set forth in full.

Surrounding
Land Uses
and Setting
Planned
Land Use
Existing Zoning Existing Land
Use
North
Employment –
Heavy
Industrial
IH – Heavy Industrial Vacant
East
Employment –
Heavy
Industrial
IH – Heavy Industrial Vacant
South Open Space –
Ponding Basin OS – Open Space Ponding Basin
West
Employment –
Heavy
Industrial
IH – Heavy Industrial
Amazon
Fulfillment
Center

Required
Approvals
from Other
Public
Agencies
City of Fresno, Department of Public Works; City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities, City of Fresno, Building and Safety Services Division; City of Fresno, Fire Department; Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; County of Fresno, Department of Public Health; County of Fresno, Department of Public Works and Planning; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; California Public Utilities Commission.

Have
California
Native
American
tribes
traditionally
and
culturally
affiliated
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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21 080.3.1, 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 City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 10
with the
project area
requested
consultation
pursuant to
Public
Resources
Code (PRC)
section
21080.3.1? If
so, has
consultation
begun?
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 supported by substantial evidence, chooses 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 Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on March 22, 2021. The 30-day comment period ended on April 20, 2021. Both tribes did not request consultation.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 11
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Pursuant to PRC Section 21157.1(b) and CEQA Guidelines 15177(b)(2), the purpose of this Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) Initial Study is to analyze whether the subsequent Project was described in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 and whether the subsequent Project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment, which was not previously examined in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 adopted for the Fresno General Plan.

The Environmental Checklist is the analysis portion of this Negative Declaration (MND). This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The CEQA Guidelines require evaluation of the 20 environmental issues analyzed in this section, as well as the Mandatory Findings of Significance. 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. No boxes have been marked because no areas were determined to have a potentially significant impact.

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

Determination (To be Completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
◼ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

 I find that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR but that it is not fully within the scope of the MEIR because the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the MEIR. However, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. The project specific mitigation measures and all appl icable mitigation measures contained in the MEIR Mitigation City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 12
Measure Monitoring Checklist will be imposed upon the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.

 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicab le standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Approved By:

Jose Valenzuela, Planner III Date
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 13
Project Overview
Lito Bucu of the City of Fresno, Department of Public Utilities, UP&E (Applicant) proposes the construction of Water Well Pump Station No. 372 (Project), consisting of a new water well, chain link fence, a 29’ x 9 ’-4” equipment building to house electrical panels and chemical injection equipment, a telemetry antenna, and installation of perimeter landscaping for screening on a site (Project site) totaling 0.34 -acres on the northwest corner of S. Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E. Central Avenue and E. North Avenue (APN: 330-021-75ST), herein referred to throughout the document as “proposed Project” or “Project.” Project details are provided below. The site is sized and configured to accept future installation of an emergency generator and water treatment facilities including an iron and manganese filtration system, granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment system, and a de-aeration tank, if deemed necessary. Water Well Pump Station No. 372 will pump ground water into the City's water distribution system.

Project Location
As shown in Figure 1 below, the Project site is located on the northwest corner of S. Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E. Central Avenue and E. North Avenue and totals approximately ± 0.34-acres (APN: 330-021-75ST). The Parcel was created by a deed through conveyance to a Public Entity. The site is located immediately to the north of an existing ponding basin and to the south, east, and west of existing and future industrial development. The site is currently within the boundary of an existing construction site for the adjoining parcel to the north.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 14
Figure 1. Project Location

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 15
Existing Setting
This section describes the existing conditions, surrounding conditions, as well as the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation.

1. Existing Conditions
As shown in Figure 1 above, the existing site is vacant with no improvements, structures , or vegetation. Historically, the site has been vacant prior to 1973. From the 1970s to approximately 2017, the site and adjoining properties to the west, north, and east were occupied by orchards.

Construction activities for a large industrial warehouse to the northeast of the site began in 2017.

The site is currently within the boundary of an existing construction site for the adjoining parcel to the north. A 900-foot test hole was drilled on the Project site for testing between December 11, 2017 and Dec ember 22, 2017. The test hole drilling involved drilling a small diameter hole and logging the encountered geologic formations in order to determine the best location and depth of the well. The test drilling confirmed the location of Water Well Pump Station No. 372.

2. Surrounding Conditions
As referenced in Table 1 the Project site is surrounded primarily by vacant land, industrial development, and a water basin. to the north, south, east, and west. The two vacant adjoining parcels to the north are currently undergoing construction to develop industrial uses.

Table 1. Surrounding Land Uses
Planned Land Use Zoning (E) Land Use (E)
North Employment – Heavy
Industrial IH – Heavy Industrial Vacant
East Employment – Heavy
Industrial IH – Heavy Industrial Vacant
South Open Space –
Ponding Basin OS – Open Space Ponding Basin
West Employment – Heavy
Industrial IH – Heavy Industrial Amazon Fulfillment
Center

3. Land Use Designation
The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Employment – Heavy Industrial (See Figure 2a). The Project does not propose any change to the designated land use.

4. Zoning Designation
The Project site is within the IH – Heavy Industrial Zone District. No zone change is proposed by the Project (See Figure 2b).

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 16
Figure 2a. Land Use Map

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 17
Figure 2 b. Zoning Map

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 18
Project Description
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including site - preparation, proposed structures, and on- and off-site improvements.

1. Project Entitlements
The Project includes a Development Permit.

2. Project Construction and Phasing
The Project is anticipated to begin construction in October 2021 (Phase 1) with full buildout by November 2022. The expected phasing is shown below in Table 2 but will be dependent on availability of resources. A description of each of the features is included below. The UP&E proposes to complete this well site's development in the following three (3) phases.

Table 2. Proposed Project Construction and Phasing
Phase Activity Timing
Phase 1: Well
Construction
Well Drilling October 2021
Well Development December 2021
Equipment Installation June 2022
Phase 2: Site
Improvements
Perimeter Fence and Landscaping November 2022
Other Site Improvements November 2022
Iron Manganese Filtration System Only if needed
Phase 3: GAC
Treatment Systems
GAC Treatment Systems Installation (if
required)
Only if needed

3. Site Preparation
Site preparation would include typical grading activities to ensure an adequately graded site for drainage purposes. Other site preparation would include minor excavation for the installation of utility infrastructure, for conveyance of water, sewer, storm water, and irrigation. There are no existing improvements or structures on the site, so there would be no demolition required.

4. Project Components
This section describes the overall components of the Project, such as the proposed buildings, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and utilities.

Demolition
No structures would be demolished as part of this Project.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 19
Well Construction
Well construction would be Phase 1 of Project Construction and consist of: 1) well drilling, 2) well development, and 3) equipment installation. First, a borehole is drilled with reverse rotary drilling equipment and the well casing, gravel pack, and cement sanitary seal are installed. Then, a well development tool is used to clean the drilling fluids and fines such as clay and silts from the water bearing strata. Additional development is accomplished by pumping and surging large quantities of water f rom the well. A 24 -hour pump test is then performed. Lastly, the pumping equipment (vertical turbine pump, column, shaft, electrical motor) and power supply (transformer and control panel) are installed. The well is disinfected and tested for bacterial and general water quality. At this point, the well is connected to the water main. The pump and other facilities are equipped to prevent public exposure to moving parts and electrical hazards. The pump station is then ready for operation.

During Phase 2 o f Project Construction, an Iron and Manganese Filtration system may be installed on the site. A filtration system designed and built as a package would be utilized for this Pump Station. Treatment will commence after installation of the facility. And, if required to address water contamination, GAC vessels would be installed on the site as part of Phase 3 of Project Construction. Preparation shall include construction of facilities consistent with the permit. Treatment would commence after installa tion of vessels and the GAC. Additional information regarding the GAC system operations including carbon change out procedure is available in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment No. C -90-40 (available in the offices of the Planning and Development Department) which is incorporated by reference into this statement as if set forth in full.

Conceptual Site Layout and Elevations
As shown in Figure 3, the Project entails drilling a new water well, construction of a perimeter chain link fencing , a 29’ X 9 ’-4” equipment building to house electrical panels and chemical injection equipment, a telemetry antenna, and installation of front landscaping for screening. The site is sized and configured to accept future installation of an em ergency generator and water treatment facilities including an iron and manganese filtration system, granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment system, and a de -aeration tank, if deemed necessary. The site area totals 14,659 sf. and the proposed building a rea comprises 250 sf. Conceptual elevations are shown in Figure 4. As shown, the maximum height of the masonry building is 10 ’., carbon vessels are 15’, manganese filters are 10’., and the perimeter chain link fence is 7’. There is also a proposed 10’ tall antenna (i.e., telemetry antenna) to be mounted on the masonry building.

Site Circulation and Parking
Typical public works improvements such as curb and gutter, lighting, street paving, and sidewalks would be constructed within six (6) months from the date that the development of surrounding public works improvements reach the Project site, anticipated to occur during Phase City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 20
2 of Project Construction . In any event, these improvements shall be consistent with the conditions of the permit. Regarding site circulation, the Project would be accessed by two (2) points of ingress and egress; one is proposed along S. Northpointe Drive and E. Prime Avenue with a 48’ concrete driveway into the interior of the site and the other is proposed to the north of the site via an ingress/egress easement. The 15 ’ drive approaches would be constructed per City of Fresno Public Works Standards P-2 and P-3, and vehicular entries would be secured by 5’ and 10’ chain link gates. Both gates would be closed at all times and would only be opened when UP&E crews perform routine maintenance or deliveries. Dedication of a pedestrian easement along the eastern exterior of the site is proposed with a minimum 4’ path of travel. The sidewalk would be constructed per Public Works Standard P -5 along S. Northpointe Drive and E. Prime Avenue.

Landscaping
The Project would be landscaped per the Site Plan shown in Figure 3 and would occur during Phase 2 of Project Construction. Landscaping would consist of a 10 ’ landscape strip along the site frontage on S. Northpoint e Drive and E. Prime Avenue. The proposed landscape area comprises 1,000 sf. of the site. The landscaping would mature within five (5) years to screen equipment, including treatment facilities. The landscaping would be completed within six (6) months of occupancy or at a time specified by the Planning and Development Department.

Utilities
Utilities for the site would consist of water, sewer, electric, cable, gas, and stormwater infrastructure. Minor trenching and digging activities would be required for t he installation of necessary pipelines to serve the site . All utility plans would be required to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agency and/or department to ensure that installation occurs to pertinent codes and regulations. Other infrastructur e includes an existing fire hydrant, existing sanitary sewer manhole, exiting water valve, and existing water meter box. Utilities are provided by and managed from a combination of agencies including the City, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Municipal Flood Control District, and Pacific Gas & Electric.

5. Project Design and Operations
This section describes the Project design and operations as it relates to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, and noise.

Air Quality
The Project design incorporates the following measures in regard to air quality impacts:

• The generation of construction -related dust will be controlled by o bservance of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Regulation VIII.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 21
• The operation of the electrical pump, granular activated carbon filter, or chlorination equipment will not result in adverse impacts to air quality. Because of the minimal impacts associated with these operations, the SJVAPCD does not require permits for these operations.
• If an air stripping operation and/or an auxiliary diesel or natural gas engine greater than 50 h.p. is considered for this pump station, the UP&E will request an Authority to Construct certificate from the District prior to the operation of these facilities.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project design and operation incorporates the following measures in regard to hazards and hazardous materials:

• Ongoing monitoring of GAC absorption medium and frequent change -out to prevent saturation of the absorption site on carbon particles which trap and hold organic contaminants that would allow TCE and other contaminants to enter the drinking water supply.
• Containment of spent GAC in a sealed change-out system, with regeneration/disposal of the used carbon in a licensed facility (to be made a contract requirement of vendors who are hired by the City for GAC changeout).
• Prior to the ins tallation of the post -filter disinfection system, the City may be required to complete and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program to the Fresno County Community Health Department, Environmental Health System. Contact the Hazardous Materials Disclosure/Registration Program at (559) 445-3721 for more information. • Removal and disposal of contaminated GAC is an activity which may require special handling as a hazardous waste. Spent GAC potentially produced by this operation must be stored and labeled i n accordance with federal, state, and local governments requirements. Management of the carbon filtration facilities must be contracted to a fully licensed operator authorized by appropriate federal and state agencies. • Prior to using an air stripper as a r esource for remediation the Applicant must file a hazardous materials business plan and obtain a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD. • Securing the wellhead treatment site by constructing a chain link fence with locking gate. • A permit is required from Fire Prevention for hazardous materials storage on -site. A permit is also required for the above ground fuel tank located inside the future generator.

Hydrology and Water Quality
To eliminate any potential bacterial contamination, the UP&E would disinfect the water using chlorination prior to distribution. Chlorination will take place through Sodium hypochlorite generation from common salt, injection of sodium hypochlorite solution, or calcium hypochlorite tables as described above under Hazards and Hazardous Materials. In addition, Project design and normal operations will include the following.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 22

• Filing of a Report of Waste Discharge to characterize backwash water and determine the appropriate level of permitting and any Discharge Requirements. • Measures t o protect surface water and groundwater: The City of Fresno is directly responsible for ensuring that any discharge (e.g. pumped groundwater) during the project is permitted through appropriate waste discharge adopted by the CVWB or SWRCB. • Filing of a Report of Waste Discharge to characterize backwash water and determine the appropriate level of permitting and any Discharge Requirements. • Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting regulations by filing a Notice of Intent (or notice of exemption).
• Addition of Pump Station No. 372 to the City's Master Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which has standards for containment and handling of these chemicals, staff training, placarding, and spill response.

Noise
The Project design incorporates the following measures in regard to noise.

• Installation of critically quiet mufflers, structural screening, and/or waterproof cowling or ducting.
• Retention and/or installation of appropriate landscaping. • Installation and/or retention of a 7’ chain link fence.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 23
Figure 3. Conceptual Site Plan

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 24
Figure 4. Conceptual Elevations, Front (West)

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 25
Required Project Approvals
The City of Fresno requires the following review, permits, and/or approvals for the proposed Project; however, other approvals not listed below may be required as identified throughout the entitlement process.
• Development Permit
• Grading Permit
• Building Permit
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health • California Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water • California State Water Resources Control Board

Environmental Checklist
This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Evaluation Instructions
Evaluation instructions are as follows.

• For purposes of this Initial Study, the foll owing answers have the corresponding meanings:

o “No Impact” means the subsequent project will not cause any additional significant effect related to the threshold under consideration; o “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant; o “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;
o “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is an additional potentially significant effect related to the threshold under consideration.

• 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 City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 26
as well as ge neral standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

• Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially 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.

• "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 below, may be cross-referenced).

• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, MEIR, 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:

o Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. o Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the MEIR or another earlier docu ment pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. o 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.

• Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist refe rences 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.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 27
• Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

• This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

• The explanation of each issue should identify:

o The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 28

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

1. 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 co nflict
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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 2014 Fresno General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the city limits or Sphere of Influence. Although no scenic vista has been designated, the General Plan identifies six (6) locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points from which views should be maintained. Scenic vistas within the Fresno Planning Area could provide distant views of features such as the San Joaquin River to the north and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. Distant views of the S an City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 29
Joaquin River and areas north of the river can be seen from the river bluffs. However, the majority of these views are from private property. Partially obstructed views of the San Joaquin River can be seen from Weber Avenue, Milburn Avenue, McCampbell D rive, Valentine Avenue, Palm Avenue, State Route 41, Friant Road, and Woodward Park.

Additionally, there are several locations throughout the eastern portion of the City that provide distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills. It should be noted that the se distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills are impeded many days during the year by the poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Mapping System, t here is one eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence. However, Fresno County has four eligible and one officially designated State Scenic Highways; the nearest designated or eligible highways are several miles north of the subject site.1

In order to protect and beautify its scenic corridors and vistas, the City outlines specific General Plan policies that regulate signs, utility lines, land use, and other activities that would detract from the aesthetic value of these corridors (See Tables 1.1 and 1.2).

Table 1.1. Fresno General Plan – Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element Objective D ‐2. Enhance the visual image of all "gateway" routes entering the Fresno Planning Area.

Policy D ‐2‐a: Design Requirements for Gateways. Create unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.

Commentary: Gateway route designation will be considered for application to key access routes such as State Routes 99, 41 , 168, and 180; passenger rail rights ‐ of‐way; Peach Avenue, McKinley Avenue, and Clinton Way where air travelers enter Fresno; Van Ness Avenue; Fulton, Divisadero, Tulare, and Fresno Streets; Belmont and Olive; and Blackstone, Abby, Shaw and Herndon Avenues.

Policy D‐2‐c: Highway Beautification. Work with Caltrans, the Fresno Council of Governments, Tree Fresno, neighboring jurisdictions, and other organizations to obtain funding for highway beautification programs.

Objective D‐3. Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Policy D ‐3‐a: Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well‐balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent

1 California State Scenic Highway System Map, reviewed April 26, 2021 City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 30
linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree ‐ deficient Arterial Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.

Policy D‐3‐b: Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.

Policy D‐3‐c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as "urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian spaces.

Policy D‐3‐d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

Objective D ‐4. Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Policy D‐4‐f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new non ‐ residential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and services.

Objective D ‐5. Maintain and improve community appearance through programs that prevent and abate blighting influences.

Table 1.2. Fresno General Plan – Mobility and Transportation Element Objective MT-3. Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations.

Policy MT-3‐a: Scenic Corridors. Implement measures to preserve and enhance scenic qualities along scenic corridors or boulevards, including: • Van Ness Boulevard ‐ Weldon to Shaw Avenues • Van Ness Extension ‐ Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff • Kearney Boulevard ‐ Fresno Street to Polk Avenue • Van Ness/Fulton couplet ‐ Weldon Avenue to Divisadero • Butler Avenue ‐ Peach to Fowler Avenues • Minnewawa Avenue ‐ Belmont Avenue to Central Canal • Huntington Boulevard ‐ First Street to Cedar Avenue • Shepherd Avenue ‐ Friant Road to Willow Avenue • Audubon Drive ‐ Blackstone to Herndon Avenues • Friant Road ‐ Audubon to Millerton Roads • Tulare Avenue ‐ Sunnyside to Armstrong Avenues • Ashlan Avenue‐ Palm to Maroa Avenues.

Policy MT-3-b: Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards. Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 31
As mentioned above in the Project description, the Project site is located on the northwest corner of S. Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E . Central Avenue and E .

North Avenue. In general, the Project site is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. As a result, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses, as well as typical infrastructure such as roadways, streetlights, parking lots, and ambient light sources typical of industrial development.

DISCUSSION

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

No Impact. As mentioned above, there are no identified or designated scenic vistas within the city limits or Sphere of Influence. Although the General Plan identifies locations along the San Joaquin River bluff, the Project site is located several miles south from these locations. As such, because the site is not located near any scenic vistas, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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

No Impact. As previously mentioned, there are no designated scenic highways in the city of Fresno. Although the Fresno General Plan identifies scenic corridors within the city, the Project site is not located in the vicinity of such corridors. Further, the Project s ite does not contain any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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?

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Project area is characterized by industrial development and thereby, the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings is predominately industr ial. The well equipment, power source, and GAC treatment system (if required) proposed in this area would have an industrial appearance in terms of color, size, and configuration, which would be consistent with the existing visual character or quality of public views of the area. The pump station City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 32
would be secured by a 7’ tall chain link fence in conformance with Public Works Standard P-98. In addition, the site frontage would feature a 10’ landscape perimeter as required by the Fresno Municipal Code. Theref ore, the Project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, nor would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and regulations governing scenic quality. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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

Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are assoc iated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g. street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, etc.). Security lighting is proposed on the Project site to illuminate the p ump station, which would create a new source of light or glare in the area for adjacent uses. However , pursuant to the Fresno Municipal Code, outdoor lighting is required to be hooded and directed so as not to subject adjacent properties to unwanted light and glare. Further, the Project would be subject to the 2014 Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-3 which require lighting systems for street and parking area to be shielded and oriented away from adjacent properties. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the aesthetic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 33

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES –
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California 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 carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 34
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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
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). The assessment model was prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture farmland and impacts to forest resources, includin g timberland, to determine if there are significant environmental effects. Lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mappin g and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland.” Maps are updated every two years.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Will iamson Act) allows local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value. The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 years and automatically renews upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 35

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?

Less than Significant Impact . According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Proj ect site is located on land that is designated as “Prime Farmland.” This land designation is defined as irrigated land that has a good combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops.2 Despite the designation, the Project site does not contain any active farmland, including crops or farming operations. Historically, the Project site has not been used for farmland since early 2017 when the general Project area began to be converted to non-agricultural uses.

As such, the Project would not remove any active farmland.

The conversion of farmland was examined in the General Plan MEIR. Pursuant to Section 15168(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the 2014 General Plan MEIR is incorporated by reference into this document. The General Plan MEIR determined the impact of the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural uses to be significant and unavoidable and issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations within the area of Agricultural Resources. Specifically, the General Plan MEIR recognizes that despite implementation of the objectives and policies of the General Plan, project and cumulative impacts on agricultural resources will remain significant; and, that no feasible measures in addition to the obje ctives and policies of the General Plan are available. Thus, n o mitigation measures were identified for conversion of Prime Farmland. On this basis, the Project as a non-agricultural use was contemplated and overridden in the MEIR when the planned land use designated was changed to Heavy Industrial . Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

No Impact. As shown on Exhibit 5.2 -2, Williamson Act Contracts of the Agricultural Resources Chapter of the General Plan MEIR, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Further, the site is not currently zoned or designated for agricultural use. As a result, the Project would have no impact.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public

2 California Department of Conservation, “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed April 15, 2021, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 36
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. The Project site does not contain forest land or timberland and it is not zoned for forestry or timberland uses. As a result, the Project would have no impact.

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

No Impact. See discussion under Section 2(c).

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?

Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project site is considered Prime Farmland, the site is not zoned for or designated for agricultural uses, nor is it planned for agricultural uses. In addition, the site is not zoned or designated for forestry uses, nor is it planned for forestry uses. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 37

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

3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 38

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is within the City of Fresno, in Fresno County, and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin). This region has chronic non -attainment of federal and state clean air standards for ozone/oxidants and particul ate matter due to the combination of topography and climate. The San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is located in the center of the Air Basin, surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, with prevailing winds carrying pollutants and pollutant precursors from urbanized areas to the north, in turn contributing pollutants and precursors to downwind air basins. The Mediterranean climate of this region, with a high number of sunny days and little or no measurable precipitation for several months of the year, fosters photochemical reactions in the atmosphere, creating ozone and particular matter.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide and is the second largest air basin in the state. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The Valley is basically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwes t.

The Valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin­Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The Valley, thus, could be considered a "bowl" open only to the north.

The SJVAB has an "Inland Mediterranean" climate averagin g over 260 sunny days per year. The Valley floor is characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler winters. During the summer, wind speed and direction data indicate that winds usually originate at the north end of the Valley, flow in a south-southeasterly direction through the Valley, through Tehachapi pass, and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In addition, the Altamont Pass serves as a funnel for pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin into the region. For the entire Valley, high daily temperature readings in the summer average 95°F.

During the winter, wind speed and directional data indicate that wind occasionally originates from the south end of the Valley and flows in a north-northwesterly direction as light, variable winds (less than 10 mph). Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations. Temperatures below freezing are unusual, with average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s. Highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low temperature is 45°F.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 39
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Solar energy heats up the Earth's surface, which in turn radiates heat and warms the lower atmosphere. As altitude increases, the air temperature usually decreases due to increasing distance from the source of heat. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Inversions can exist at the surface or at any height above the ground and tend to hold in the pollutants that are generated there.

These regional factors affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants within the SJVAB. Air pollutant emissions overall are fairly constant throughout the year, yet the concentrations of pollutants in the air vary from day to day and even hour to hour. This variability is due to complex interactions of weather, climate, and topography, which affect the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants. Conditions that move and mix the atmosphere help disperse pollutants, while conditions that cause the atmosphere t o stagnate allow pollutants to concentrate. Local climatological effects, including topography, wind speed and direction, temperature, inversion layers, precipitation, and fog exacerbate the air quality problem in the SJVAB.

REGULATIONS
The Federal Clean Air Act required the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards, which state that certain pollutants should not exceed specified levels.

Transportation conformity is required under the Federal Clean Air Act to ensure federally supported highway and transportation project activities are consistent with State implementation programs. Conformity means that transportation activities should not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainme nt of federal air quality standards. Conformity requires demonstration that State and regional transportation control measures in ozone nonattainment areas are implemented in a timely fashion.

California adopted stricter standards under the C alifornia Clean Air Act by r equiring nonattainment areas to achieve and maintain the State ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date, and local Air Districts to develop plans for attaining the State ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitro gen dioxide standards. Under the California Health and Safety Code, the Air Resources Board is authorized to adopt regulations to protect public health and the environment through the mobile and stationary source airborne toxic control measures. These meas ures focus on reducing public exposure to diesel particulates and other toxic air contaminants. In California, the Pavely Clean Car Standard, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of the new national fuel standard will have dramatic impacts on r educing vehicle emissions.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 40
Therefore, mobile emissions from cars and trucks are being reduced by State and Federal standards, based on air quality considerations and energy use.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the local regional jurisdictional entity charged with administering Fresno's air quality management programs, including attainment planning, rule-making, rule enforcement, and monitoring under Federal and State Clean Air Acts and Clean Air Act Amendments. The SJVAP CD has the authority to regulate stationary sources for air pollution, including dust reduction during construction and stationary requirements. SJVAPCD developed Regulation 8 to establish controls for earthmoving activities, while Regulation 10 imposes fees to mitigate related emissions for new development projects within the Valley. In the past, lack of authority to regulate mobile source emissions has restricted SJVAPCD's ability to reduce emissions in the Valley and achieve compliance timelines for federal air quality standards.

Individual projects may be subject to applicable SJVAPCD rules, regulations, and strategies, including:

• Regulation VIII includes 'Fugitive Dust Rules' related to the control of dust and fine particulate matter. This rule mandate s the implementation of dust control measures to reduce the potential for dust to the lowest possible level. Well sites are exempt under service outages and/or emergency situations. • Regulation IX for 'Mobile and Indirect Sources' requires an Indirect Source Review under Rule 9510 if a project attracts or generates mobile source activity that results in emission of pollutants. However, well drilling operations are generally exempt from Ambient Air Quality Analysis under the Small Project Analysis Level for stationary sources.
• 'Authority to Construct' certificate is required if an air stripping operations and/or diesel or natural gas engines greater than 50 horsepower are utilized. However, engines required to protect property or the public health during an emergency are exempt.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Air Quality Section of Appendix G of the 2021 CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) contains a list of effects to be assessed using the significance criteria established by the applicable air qu ality management or air pollution control district to determine if a project would:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 41
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quan titative thresholds for ozone precursors).
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

To assess the air quality impact using these five (5) effects per CEQA guidelines, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) established significance thresholds. These thresholds of significance are outlined in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in 2015 and are summarized as follows:

Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The significance of the impacts of the emissions from construction, operational nonpermitted equipment and activities, and operational permitted equipment and activities are evaluated separat ely. The thresholds of significance are based on a calendar year basis. For construction emissions, the annual emissions are evaluated on a rolling 12- month period. The 2015 GAMAQI contains thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance thresholds are:

• CO: 100 tons per year
• NOx: 10 tons per year
• ROG: 10 tons per year
• Sox: 27 tons per year
• PM10: 15 tons per year
• PM2.5: 15 tons per year

Ambient Air Quality
Impacts on air quality result from emissions generated during short -term activities (construction) and long -term activities (operations). Construction -related emissions consist mainly of exhaust emissions (NOx and PM) from construction equipment and other mobile sources, and fugitive d ust (PM) emissions from earth moving activities.

Operational emissions are source specific and consist of permitted equipment and activities and non-permitted equipment and activities.

The SJVAPCD applies the following guidance in determining whether an a mbient air quality analysis should be performed: when assessing the significance of project -related impacts on air quality, it should be noted that the impacts may be significant when on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational a ctivities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after implementation of all City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 42
enforceable mitigation measures. Under such circumstance, the SJVAPCD recommends that an ambient air quality analysis be performed.

Odors
The int ensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants , and rendering plants. The SJVAPCD has identified these common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the Air Basin and has prepared screening levels for potential odor sources ranging from one (1) to two (2) miles of distance from the odor - producing facility to sensitive receptors.

Lastly, as previously mentioned, the Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that certain po llutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. The air quality standards have been set to protect public health, particularly the health of vulnerable people. Therefore, if the concentration of those contaminants exceeds the norm, some susceptible individuals in the population are likely to experience health effects. Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the individual's reaction are factors that affect the extent and nature of the health effects.

In regard to local measures and thresholds for air quality impacts, the Fresno General Resource and Conservation Element outlines goals, objectives, and policies for addressing air quality. A sample of applicable goals and policies are as follows.

Table 3.1. Fresno General Plan – Resource and Conservation Element Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

Policy RC‐4‐a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.

Policy RC ‐4‐b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 43
community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood pla ns, Concept Plans, and development proposals.

Policy RC ‐4‐c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.

PROJECT DESIGN
The Project design incorporates the following measures in regard to air quality impacts:

• The generation of construction-related dust will be controlled by observance of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Regulation VIII. • The operation of the electrical pump, granular activated carbon filter, or chlorination equipment will not result in adverse impacts to air quality. Because of the minimal impacts associated with these operations, the SJVAPCD does not require permits for these operations.
• If an air stripping operation and/or an auxiliary diesel or natural gas engine greater than 50 h.p. is considered for this pump station, the UP&E will request an Authority to Construct certificate from the District prior to the operation of these facilities.

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact. CalEEMod was used to determine the potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants for the Project. Table 3.2 below shows the Project totals (in tons per year) in relation to the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds outlined in the GAMAQI.

The results shown used default CalEEMod factors with the exception of average daily trips which were changed to reflect the limited trip generation expected of the unmanned facility in addition to removal of demolition from the Construction factors, as demolition is not required for the Project. As shown, the estimated Construction and Operational emissions of the Project are significantly below all significant thresholds and the Project is therefore consistent with the GAMAQI. CalEEMod results are presented in Appendix A.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 44
Table 3.2. CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5 Thresholds, Maximum

Emission Source (Tons Per
Year) CO NOx ROG

PM10

PM2.5
Construction
Construction, Unmitigated
(maximum)

0.2036 0.2250 0.1237 0.0149 0.0122
Operational
Operational, Unmitigated 0.0130 0.0154 0.0707 1.1700e- 003

1.1700e-
003
Total Emissions
Construction and Operational 0.2166 0.2404 0.1944 1.1849 1.1822 Significance Threshold 100 10 10 15 15
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2, ran on April 21, 2021

Additionally, the proposed project shall comply with all rules and regulations administered by the SJVAPCD including but not limited to Regulation VIII - Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions, Rules 8011-8081 which intend to minimize human -generated PM10 emissions (e.g. dust and dirt) and Indirect Source Review, Rule 9510 which intends to minimize NOx and PM10 emissions through on-site mitigation or district-administered projects off-site. The Project design anticipates such requirements and incorporates the measures in regard to air quality impacts, as described above. Thus, any impacts related to construction act ivities of the Project would be regulated through SJVAPCD regulations and requirements.

Overall, the Project would not have potential emissions of regulated criterion pollutants that exceed the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds as outlined in the GAMAQI and the Project shall be conditioned to meet additional rules and regulations administered by the SJVAPCD to minimize and mitigate on -site emissions. Consequently, the Project would result in a less-than-significant 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?

Less than Significant Impact. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. As discussed in item (a) above, the construction and operations of the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 45
for criteria pollutants as set by the GAMAQI (See Table 3.2). This analysis includes PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, because the Project’s potential emissions were determined to be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling unit(s). The nearest receptors are single-family homes to the south of the Project site. As stated in item (a) above, emissions during construction or operation would not reach the significance thresholds and would not be anticipated to result in concentrations that reach or surpass ambient air quality requirements. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on any known sensitive receptor.

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

Less than Significant Impact. Specific land uses that are considered sources of undesirable odors include landf ills, transfer stations, composting facilities, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants.

The Project would not consist of such land uses; rather, the Project proposes a water well pump station, thus, is unlikely to produce odors that would be considered to adversely affect a substantial number of people. Further, there are no major odor -generating sources within the Project area . Although some odors would be emitted during construction of the site (i.e., through diesel fuel and exhaust from equipment), these odors would be temporary and last only during construction activities. For these reasons, the odor impacts associated with the Project would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the air quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 46

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

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 47
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regi onal, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Argonaut Ecological Consulting, Inc. conducted a field review of the Project Site on March 10, 2021. Before the field review, Argonaut Ecological Consulting also reviewed the California Natural Diversity Database to determine the known locations of potential special status species and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory Maps to determine the location of mapped wetlands and water features. The resulting Biological Evaluation Technical Memo determined that no wildlife or wildlife habitat is present on the site; no species were encount ered during the review Further, the field review indicated that the site is within the boundary of an existing construction site, the site is devoid of vegetation except for an upland species associated with highly disturbed sites (Bermuda grass), and the site is highly disturbed from recent adjacent site development. Overall, Argonaut Ecological Consulting determined that for these reasons, no further biological studies are warranted or needed (Appendix B).

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 48

DISCUSSION

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

No Impact. As confirmed during the field review, the Project site is vacant, undeveloped, devoid of vegetative cover, and is surrounded by ongoing adjacent site development. The site contains some ruderal vegetation, namely Bermuda grass, which is consistent with vegetation found on highly disturbed sites. No trees or water features were present on the site. Further, no special-status wildlife species or signs of such species were present on the site; and, according to the field review, the highly disturbed condition of the site would preclude such species from occurring. For these reasons, the site does not provide essential habitat for special -status species, and as a result, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

b) Have a substanti al 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. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified on the Project site; and, the site does not contain any water features that would provide habitat for riparian or other sensitive natural communities. In addition, the site has been observed to be vacant, undeveloped, and highly disturbed as it is within an area experiencing ongoing site development for industrial uses. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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?

No Impact. A search of the National Wetlands Inventory shows no federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the Project site or within the broader Project area. 3 This was confirmed by the field review and research conducted by Argonaut Ecological Consulting. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands and no mitigation measures are required.

3 USGS, “National Wetlands Inventory.” Accessed April 15, 2021, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 49
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native res ident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact. As previously mentioned, the Project site is highly disturbed and is within the boundary of an existing construction site. As such, the Project site is disturbed and does not provide appropriate habitat for fish or wildlife species. In addition, the site does not contain any riparian or other sensitive natural community ide ntified in local or regional plans, or by the National Wetlands Inventory. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact on native resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species and no mitigation measures are required.

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

No Impact. Although the City of Fresno does have policies related to preservation of biological resources, these policies do not apply to the Project because the Project site does not contain any biological resources, including habitats, waters or wetlands, trees, or vegetative cover. For example, most of the policies pertain to general long -term protection and preservation of biological resources including providing buffers for natural areas, implementing habitat restoration where applicable, protection/enhancement of the San Joaquin River area, and other similar policies. Further, the site is vacant, undeveloped, and highly disturbed. Consequently, due to the lack of any identified species, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the region pertain to natural resources, which exist on the Project site or in its immediate vicinity. Therefore, no actions or activities resulting from the implementation of the Project would conflict with such provisions and the Project would have no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the biological resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 50

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

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Peak & Associates, Inc. conducted a records search and map review on April 6, 2021.

The records search was conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, determining that a portion of the site had been surveyed in 2014 for the South Fresno Economic Developm ent Project Work Area for which construction is now underway. The closest resource identified was a segment of the Central Canal, 0.10 miles south of the Project site. The historical map review showed no natural water course, buildings, or structures in or near the Project area. Overall, the resulting Cultural Resources Evaluation Technical Memo determined that for these reasons, no further cultural resources studies are warranted or needed (Appendix C).

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact. Based on the records search and map review conducted by Peak & Associates, there are no local, state, or federal designated historical resources on the Project site or within the Project area. The Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 51
highly disturbed as it is within the construction boundary for development of an adjacent site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non -visible, buried site may exist on the Project site. Therefore, due to the grading and ground disturbance from construction activities that would occur as a result of the Project, the Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in General Plan MEIR. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. Based on the records search and map review conducted by Peak & Associates, there are no local, state, or federal designated historical resources on the Project site or within the Project area. The Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and highly disturbed as it is within the construction boundary for development of an adjacent site. Further, there is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the Project site.

Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non -visible, buried site may exist on the Project site. Therefore, due to the grading and ground disturbance from construction activities that would occur as a result of the Project, the Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in General Plan MEIR. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the event that human remains are identified during construction of the Project, then the Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the General Plan MEIR . Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 52

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

6. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy use of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage. Per Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy includes decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. A project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and u nnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards or result in significant impacts in regards to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations.

The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. They apply for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings and relate to various energy efficiencies including City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 53
but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting.4 Part 11, or the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), was developed in 2007 to meet the state goals for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions pursuant to AB32. CALGreen covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. 5 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees air pollution control efforts, regulations, and programs that contribute to reduction of energy consumption. Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs ensure that development will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources.

Energy resources and conservation are discussed in the Resource Conservation Element of the Fresno General Plan. A sample of the City’s energy policies are highlighted in Table

6.1. Table 6.1. Fresno General Plan – Resource Conservation Element Objective RC‐2: Promote land uses that conserve resources.

Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary a nd mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan
Policy RC‐7‐c: Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City facilities and all new private development to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.

Policy RC‐8‐h: Solar Assistance. Identify and publicize information about financial mechanisms for private solar installations and provide over‐the‐counter permitting for solar installations meeting specified standards, which may include maximum size (in kV) of units that can be so approved

4 California Energy Commission, “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed April 16, 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019- building-energy-efficiency.
5 California Department of General Services, “CALGreen.” Accessed April 16, 2021, https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources- List-Folder/CALGreen.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 54

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of a water supply well with associated site improvements, such as perimeter fence and landscaping and normal public works improvements such as curb, gutter, lighting, street paving, and sidewalks. Construction would i nclude well drilling (i.e., drilling of a borehole) and installation of well casing, gravel pack, and cement sanitary seal. The pumping equipment (i.e., vertical turbine pump, column, shaft, electrical motor) and power supply (i.e., transformer and control panel) would then be installed, connected to the water main, and the pump station would be ready for operation.

There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy inte nsive than is used for comparable activities. All construction equipment shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies. In particular, construction and operations of the Project would be subject to applicable CARB regulations ( Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requirements (e.g. Lighting Power Density requirements ). In addition, as a City facility, the Project would be required to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate. Enforcement of these regulations , requirements, and practices would thereby minimize or eliminate unneces sary or wasteful consumption of energy. In addition, the Project would be served by PG&E and would not require extensions of energy infrastructure or new energy supplies. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned, the construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable CARB regulations, California Code of Regulations, and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requirements in addition to BMPs for water conservation. Thus, applicable state regulations and programs would be implemented to reduce energy waste.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 55
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 56

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

7. 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 57
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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by Moore Twining Associates, Inc. for the Project site and was issued on January 18, 2021. Environmental characteristics including topography, geology, soil, and hydrogeology were evaluated based on site observations and review of published literature and maps. In terms of the physical setting, the site assessment concluded that: the site has general sloping toward the west, a stormwater basin borders the site to the south, and the site is not located within a 1% or 0.2% annual chance flood hazard zone. In addition, the general soil characteristics show that the site comprises Hesperia – Fine Sandy Loam soils with moderately coarse textures, are well drained, have moderate infiltration rates, are deep and moderatel y deep, and are “moderately well ” and “well drained. ” Lastly, the site assessment found that the depth to first encountered groundwater is estimated to be approximately 110 feet.

In regard to the geology, the Project site is located within the southeast portion of the San Joaquin Valley which is part of th e Great Valley Geomorphic Province that is bound on the east by the Sierra Nevada and to the west by the Coast Range. Fresno has no known active earthquake faults and is not in any Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones. The immediate Fresno area has extreme ly low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Lo ng Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems. The most serious threat to Fresno from a major earthquake in the Eastern Sierra would be flooding that could be caused by damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River.

DISCUSSION

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 58
loss, injury, or death involving:

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

No Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno, nor is Fresno within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. Thus, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than Significant Impact . The State classifies Fresno as a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on the underlying soils and the location’s proximity to known fault lines. The Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils of the Hst Hesperia fine, sandy loam series: 0 percent slope, well drained, rare flooding, low capacity to transmit water, and a ± 80 -inch depth-to-water table.6 And, based on review of published data and a current understanding of the geologic framework and tectonic setting of the proposed development, the primary source of seismic shaking at this site is anticipated to be the Coast Ranges Sierra Block Fault, which is located approximately 48 miles southwest of the site. As mentioned above, there are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno and the Project site and vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. Further, the Project would be required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code, which are intended to minimize potential risks. Therefore, because of the Project’s stable soils and distance from active fault lines, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than Significant Impact . Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine‐grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high ‐ intensity ground shaking. As previously described, there are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the Project site. The site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Further, development of the

6 US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed April 9, 2021, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 59
site would require compliance with the City’s grading and drainage standards. Therefore, because of the Project’s relatively flat topography, stability of soils, infrequency of seismic activity, and required compliance with City standards, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

iv. Landslides?

Less than Significant Impact . The General Plan MEIR recognizes that the Fresno Planning Area consists mostly of flat topography and as such, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the city with the exception of steep banks of rivers or creeks (i.e., San Joaquin Valley River Bluff). The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils, and the site is not susceptible to seismic activities, geologic instability, or landslides. Furthermore, the site is not in the vicinity of rivers or creeks that would be more susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project site is relatively flat with stable soil conditions and has been recently modified to accommodate construction equipment for the adjacent site development. Development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short -term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. The Project shall be subject to City standards for grading and drainage, including utilization of Best Management Practices to ensure that soil disturbance would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become uns table as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project enough to result in a landslide or any other catastrophic soil event. Further, as previously discussed, the site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms and the site and vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 60
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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Phase I site assessment indicates that the subsurface of the Project site and vicinity is characterized by a thick sequence of unconsolidated sediments , primarily composed of alluvial fan deposits and flood plain overbank deposits including interbedded silts, sands, clays, and gravels. The sit e comprises stable, native soils that are well drained and have low capacity to transit water.

Such sandy soils maintain consistent volume and density. Thus, the site does not consist of expansive soils with high shrink -swell potential and therefore would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property. The Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

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

No Impact. The Project proposes a water supply well. No sewer or septic systems would be installed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would have no impact and no mitigation measures are required.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in the Cultural Resources Section, there are no known paleontological resources on the Project site. However, the General Plan MEIR employs standard mitigation measures that ensure that unknown buried resources are protected during construction, including paleontological resources.

As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the geological related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated October 21, 2016.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 61

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

8. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H 2O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmosphe ric concentrations.

From the pre -industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013).

GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.

Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The emissions from a single project will not cause global cli mate change, however, GHG City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 62
emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of GHGs and climate change presented in this section is presented in terms of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to GHGs and climate change.

Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two ‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumul atively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves.

The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human made) GHG emissions sources across the globe and no project alone would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context and process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs.

Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significan t effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.

In assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may consider the following:

• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting;
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 63
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA (2009) provides screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance. 7,8 These criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant climate change impact (see below). Projects that meet one of these criteria would have less than significant impact on the global climate.

• Does the project comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions? If no, then:
• Does the project achieve 29% GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards (BPS)? If no, then
• Does the project achieve AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with Business As Usual (BAU)?

Because BPS have not yet been adopted and identified for specific development projects, and because the City has not yet adopted a plan for reductio n of GHG with which the Project can demonstrate compliance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan will be used as an additional threshold of significance for this analysis as the adopted statewide plan for reduction or mitigation of GHGs. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was enacted by the California State legislature in 2006 with the aim to reduce GHG emissions to levels of 1990 by 2020. Recommended actions to achieve these aims were adopted by the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) in 2008 (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan). The Scoping Plan involves several measures to reduce pollution and GHG emissions, indicating a decrease of GHG emissions to 389 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e by 2030.

Additionally, the SJVAPCD requires quantification of GHG emissions for all projects which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required. Although an EIR is not required for the proposed project, the GHG emissions are quantified below. Short -term construction and long -term ope rational GHG emissions for project buildout were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2016.3.2). (See Appendix A). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use

7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Accessed April 16, 2021, http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2000). Environmental Review Guidelines: Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Accessed April 16, 2021, http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/ERG%20Adopted%20_August%202000_.pdf City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 64
projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation pla nting and/or removal, and water use.

Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO 2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

DISCUSSION

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

The Project’s estimated GHG emissions for construction and operation are presented in Table 8.1. below. In regard to construction, the SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing pollution associated with construction, as pollution-related construction will be temporary. As presented below, maximum short -term annual construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the project are estimated to be 30.2285 MTCO2e (2022). These construction GHG emissions are a one -time release. Cumulatively, these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed project.

In regard to the long-term operational related GHG emissions, the estimated operational emissions for buildout of the Project incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with uti lity and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation. As described in Section 3. Air Quality above, the Operational emission estimates account for limited vehicle trips associated with the Project.

As shown, the annual mitigated operational GH G emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would be 75 MTCO2e. The estimated emissions are approximately 214% less than the 2005 BAU emissions for the Project, and thereby achieves the AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with BAU.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 65
Table 8.1. Project GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)

Total CO2

CH4

N2O

CO2e
Construction
Construction, Unmitigated
(maximum)

30.0049 8.9400e-
003

0.0000 30.2285
Operational
Operational, Unmitigated 65.6536 0.3385 3.900e-
004

75.0006
BAU – Operational, Unmitigated 224.8066 0.3794 3.3900e- 003
235.3012
Percent Reduction (%) from BAU 214%
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2, ran on April 21, 2021.

Additionally, as discussed in more detail below, the project would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction measures. Because of this, the proposed project will not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

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

Less than Significant Impact. While the Fresno General Plan does not meet the criteria of the CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b)(3) for an appropriate GHG emissions reduction program, it includes policies aimed at reducing vehicle travel and energy usage which would include GHG reductions. The refore, the compatibility of the Project with the relevant policies of the General Plan are evaluated. The Project is consistent with several GHG related measures in the General Plan and the Scoping Plan as shown in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 below.

General Plan Compliance
In August 2014 the City of Fresno revised its General Plan which includes very few measures specifically relevant to climate change, however, some of the Air Quality and Circulation goals, policies, and action items will reduce GHG emissions as well as other pollutant emission thresholds, as they aim to eliminate driven vehicle miles and boost energy efficiency. The Project conforms to applicable items, as shown in Table 8.2.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 66
Table 8.2. Plan Consistency
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Objective RC ‐4. In cooperation with
other jurisdictions and agencies in the
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take
necessary actions to achieve and
maintain compliance with State and
federal air quality standards for criteria
pollutants.

The Project would comply with all
applicable policies and rules related to air
quality and will thus comply with this
policy.

RC‐4‐a Support Regional Efforts. Support
and lead, where appropriate, regional,
State and federal programs and actio ns
for the improvement of air quality,
especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to
monitor and control air pollutants from
both stationary and mobile sources and
implement Reasonably Available Control
Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.

City effort, not applicable.

RC‐4‐b Conditions of Approval. Develop
and incorporate air quality maintenance
requirements, compatible with Air Quality
Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as
conditions of approval for General Plan
amendments, community plans, Specific
Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept
Plans, and development proposals.

The Fresno Municipal Code incorporates
relevant general plan policies, including
this policy, into development code
requirements. Given that the City
ensured all code requirements were met
during the review of the Project, the
Project complies with this policy.

RC‐4‐c Evaluate Impacts with Models.

Continue to require the use of computer
models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate
the air quality impacts of plans and
projects that require such environmental
review by the City.

CalEEMod was used to analyze air
quality impacts of this project. The
findings of this model run are attached in
Appendix A.

RC‐4‐d Forward Information. Forward
information regarding proposed General
Plan amendments, community plans,
Specific Plans, neighborhood plans,
Concept Plans, and development
proposals that require air quality
The Project was routed by the City to the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District and they did not provide
comments.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 67
evaluation, and amendments to
development regulations to the
SJVAPCD for their review of potential air
quality and health impacts.

RC‐4‐k Electric Vehicle Charging.

Develop standards to facilitate electric
vehicle charging infrastructur e in both
new and existing public and private
buildings, in order to accommodate these
vehicles as the technology becomes
more widespread.

Citywide requirement. The City has
developed a streamlined entitlement
process for EV Charging facilities.

Policy RC -2-a Link Land Use to
Transportation. Promote mixed -use,
higher density infill development in multi -
modal corridors. Support land use
patterns that make more efficient use of
the transportation system and plan future
transportation investments in areas of
higher-intensity development.

Discourage investment in infrastructure
that would not meet these criteria.

The Project proposes the development of
a water supply well i n a developing area
that would provide for potable water.

Policy UF -14-b Local Street
Connectivity. Design local roadways to
connect throughout neighborhoods and
large private developments with adjacent
major roadways and pathways of existing
adjacent development. Create access for
pedestrians and bicycles where a local
street must dead end or be designed as a
cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide
services, shopping, and connecting
pathways for access to the greater
community area.

The Project propose s pedestrian
sidewalks along the frontage of the site
and roadway improvements are
proposed as part of Phase 2 of Project
construction.

Policy UF -14-c Block Length. Create
development standards that provide
desired and maximum block lengths in
residential, retail, and mixed -use districts
in order to enhance walkability.

Not applicable. This Project is in an
industrial district.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 68
State Scoping Plan
Assembly Bill 32 was enacted by the state in 2006 in an effort to reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2008, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan in accordance with the requirements of AB 32 which outlines the actions recommended to achieve that aim. The Scoping Plan involves a number of measures to reduce the pollution from the State. The Project complies with several of the measures as described below.

Table 8.3. Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Consistency Analysis Reduction Measure Consistency/Applicability
Determination
Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy
efficiency building and appliance standards;
pursue additional efficiency including new
technologies, policy, and implementation
mechanisms.

As new construction, the Project is
required to meet the State Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24,
Parts 6 and 11). Compliance with these
energy efficiency regulations and
programs ensure that development will
not result in wasteful, inefficien t, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
sources. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with this measure.

Renewable Portfolio Standard. Achieve
33% renewable energy mix statewide.

Renewable energy sources include (but are
not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small
hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion,
and landfill gas.

This measure is a statewide measure
that is not implemented by a project
applicant or lead agency. Therefore, the
measure is not applicable to the
proposed project.

Low Carbon Fue l Standard. Develop and
adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

This measure is a statewide measure
that is not implemented by a project
applicant or lead agency. Therefore, the
measure is not applicable to the
proposed project. However, when the
measure is in itiated, it would be
applicable to vehicles that would access
the Project site.

Regional Transportation -Related
Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets
for passenger vehicles.

This measure refers to SB 375. SB 375
does not have requirements that directly
apply to development projects.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 69
Therefore, the measure is not
applicable to the Project.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement
light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

This measure is a statewide measure
that i s not implemented by a project
applicant or lead agency. Therefore, the
measure is not applicable to the
proposed project. However, when the
measure is initiated, it would be
applicable to light -duty vehicles that
would access the Project site.

Million So lar Roofs Program. Install 3,000
MW of solar -electric capacity under
California’s existing solar programs.

This measure is implemented by
electricity providers and existing solar
programs throughout the State.

Therefore, the measure is not
applicable to the Project.

Industrial Emissions. Require assessment
of large industrial sources to determine
whether individual sources within a facility
can cost effectively reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and provide other pollution
reduction co-benefits.

While the Project is within an industrial
district, the Project is not a large
industrial source of emissions.

Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of
green building practices to reduce the
carbon footprint of California’s new and
existing inventory of buildings.

As new construction, the Project is
required to meet the State Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24,
Parts 6 and 11) (i.e., CALGreen).

Compliance with these energy
efficiency regulations and programs
ensure that development will not re sult
in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy sources.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with
this measure.

Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane
emissions at landfills. Increase waste
diversion, composting, and commercial
recycling. Move toward zero-waste.

The Fresno General Plan outlines goals
and policies for source reduction and
recycling. The Project is required to
comply with these goals and policies
during the approval process.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 70
Water. Continue efficiency programs and
use cle aner energy sources to move and
treat water.

As new construction, the Project is
required to meet the State Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24,
Parts 6 and 11) (i.e., CALGreen).

Compliance with these energy
efficiency regulations and programs
ensure that development will not result
in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy sources.

Therefore, the proposed project is
consistent with this measure.

In reviewing the local goals and policies (see Tables 8.2 and 8.3 above), the Project complies as it is proposed. In conclusion, the Project contains features that would reduce GHG emissions. These features are in accordance with several measures from the Scoping Plan and the Fresno General Plan. As such the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 71

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

9. 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 72
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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:

• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases

A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and haz ardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels mu st be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20 ‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to b e classified as hazardous waste.

Hazardous materials are routinely used, stored, and transported in Fresno that are associated with industrial and commercial/retail businesses, as well as in educational facilities, hospitals, and households. Hazardous wa ste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 73
hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by Moore Twining Associates, Inc. for the Project site and was issued on January 18, 2021. The assessment included a historical aerial photograph review for indications of past site use and/or site activities which may have involved the manufacture, generation, use, storage and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Historically, the site and adjoining properties were either vacant or occupied by orchards until 2017 when the site and adjoining properties were cleared and graded for construction activities. The assessmen t did not find any reporting of contaminants of concern, including regulatory records or identified facilities on the EnviroStor or GeoTracker websites.

However, the assessment does recommend that prior to the sale, purchase, and/or development of the property that soil should be sampled. Given the size, type, and nature of the Project (i.e., water supply well on a 0.34-acre lot within an industrial area with no planned residential us es), and because any potential water contamination would be treated by the facility , the City of Fresno has elected to not take a soil sample for this Project site. In addition, the City previously completed a 900-feet deep test bore and monitoring wells for the Project site in December 2017 and determined that the water met minimum water quality standards with appropriate treatment.

The Project site is located approximately 0.60 -miles from Orange Center Elementary School and approximately 4.50-miles from the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport.

PROJECT DESIGN
The Project design and operation incorporate the following measures in regard to hazards and hazardous materials:
• Ongoing monitoring of GAC absorption medium and frequent change -out to prevent saturation of the absorption site on carbon particles which trap and hold organic contaminants that would allow TCE and other contaminants to enter the drinking water supply.
• Containment of spent GAC in a sealed change -out system, with regeneration/disposal of the used carbon in a licensed facility (to be made a contract requirement of vendors who are hired by the City for GAC changeout). • Prior to the installation of the post -filter disinfection system, the City may be required to complete and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program to the Fresno County Community Health Department, Environmental Health System.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 74
Contact the Hazardous Materials Disclosure/Registration Program at (559) 445 - 3721 for more information.
• Removal and dispos al of contaminated GAC is an activity which may require special handling as a hazardous waste. Spent GAC potentially produced by this operation must be stored and labeled in accordance with federal, state, and local governments requirements. Management of the carbon filtration facilities must be contracted to a fully licensed operator authorized by appropriate federal and state agencies.
• Prior to using an air stripper as a resource for remediation the Applicant must file a hazardous materials business plan and obtain a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD.
• Securing the wellhead treatment site by constructing a chain link fence with locking gate.
• A permit is required from Fire Prevention for hazardous materials storage on-site.

A permit is also required for the above ground fuel tank located inside the future generator.

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . A granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration system may be constructed on the well site to remove contaminants such as DBCP from the pumped ground water. This system will consist of two to six vessels approximately 12’ in diameter by 15’ in height. These vessels may be contained in a pit 5’ deep to decrease their profile above grade. Contaminants will accumulate in these vessels until such time the GAC in the vessel is no longer effective in removing these contaminants. At t hat time, the compounds concentrated in the GAC make it a waste product which must be removed from the vessels and disposed of or regenerated by licensed operators in appropriate facilities. Mishandling of spent GAC could result in potential environmental consequences. However, based on a determination made by the Environmental Protection Agency on December 23, 1986, the spent GAC is not considered hazardous waste, subject to the following conditions:

1. The pesticide contamination in the water is a result of normal pesticide use.

2. The pesticide contamination in the water is not a result of deliberate discharge of these pesticides into the potable water source.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 75

3. The pesticides do not fall under the definition of characteristic hazardous waste in Title 40 C.F.R. Section 261.20.

Pesticides in the City groundwater supply are, in fact, a result of normal pesticide uses in past farming operations, rather than a result of deliberate discharge of these pesticides into the potable water source. A review of the Environmental Fact Sheet on the Toxicity Characteristic Rule published by the EPA on March 1990 discloses that DBCP is not listed or defined as "characteristic hazardous waste" in Title 40 C .F.R. Section 261.20.

Therefore, the spent GAC resulting from the operat ion of a filtration process is not considered a hazardous waste by EPA.

A similar conclusion was also made by Professor George P. Hanna of Engineering Research Institute, California State University, Fresno, in a letter dated July 19, 1990. He stated that "it is a well-established fact that GAC has a very high adsorption capacity for organic compounds like DBCP, and it has been shown that DBCP will tightly bond to the GAC and will not significantly desorb until put through a regeneration process." Therefore, it is concluded that the environmental risks associated with the handling and removal of the carbon are not significant.

Additional information relating to the GAC water filtration process was given by Cindy Forbes, district engineer for the Water Programs Division, California Department of Health Services, which is responsible for the enforcement of state and federal safe drinking water acts and implementation regulations. In a deposition taken on March 19, 1990, in the Superior Court, she indicated that the GAC filtration water treatment process is the only viable treatment alternative available for the removal of DBCP. It is also a proven technology for the treatment of drinking water recognized nationally by water districts, municipalities and other public entities.

The City Department of Public Utilities, UP&E , owner/operator of the pump station, proposes that the management of the carbon supply and change -out process be contracted to a fully licensed operator authorized by appropriate federal and state agencies. This management process will include the supply and installation of the virgin carbon in the vessels as well as the removal of spent carbon from the vessels and its transportation pursuant to Local, State and Federal Laws to a facilit y licensed to decontaminate such carbon through regeneration or incineration.

The exchange of clean virgin carbon for spent carbon is a "closed loop" process wherein the bulk carbon is hydraulically transferred through pressure hoses between the treatment vessels and the tanker trucks. This process is similar to but far less hazardous than the City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 76
common transfer of gasoline from a tanker truck to gas station storage tanks, which does not require an E.I.R.

Based on this analysis, it is determined that envi ronmental effects related to the use, handling, or accidental release of spent GAC are not significant.

Chlorination
One of the following three methods of chlorination may be installed at a Fresno well site.

1. On-site sodium hypochlorite solution generation from common salt,

2. A 12.5 % sodium hypochlorite solution, or

3. Calcium hypochlorite tablets dissolved and injected into the water supply.

No chlorine gas is released to the atmosphere. The sodium hypochlorite solution, a class 8 corrosive, is stored, transported, and handled in accord with the manufacturer's material safety data sheet. When handled according to manuf acturer's instructions, calcium hypochlorite tablets present an insignificant hazard associated with transportation, storage, and use.

1. Sodium Hypochlorite Generation from Common Salt. The hypochlorite generation process includes salt tablets and water to form brine and D.C. current. These variables are reacted to form 0.8% sodium hypochlorite under the following equation: NaCl + H2O + D.C. Amps = NaOCl + H2.

This 0.8% solution is injected into the water supply at the wellhead. The risk of leakage is remote and if this apparatus were disturbed, no concentration of chlorine gas would be released. The apparatus will be secured with bolts to discourage casual unauthorized opening and the building housing this equipment is well ventilated and se cured with a locked gate. Salt tablets do not present a significant hazard associated with their transportation, storage, and use.

2. Injection of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution. This method uses 5% and 12% sodium hypochlorite solutions. The 5% solution is the type commonly found as household bleach.

This solution is injected into the water supply at the wellhead. The solution is transported to the site where it is pumped into a tank at the pump station. The solution will be transported by truck in accordance with applicable materials handling standards.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 77

3. Calcium Hypochlorite Tablets. This method uses solid calcium hypochlorite tablets placed in a device through which water is passed. The tablets dissolve and release a measured chlorine solution into the water.

Chlorine Hazards
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation notes that "chlorine is well established as a respiratory irritant and at high enough concentrations inhalation of chlorine can be fatal. However, if a person survives the acute phases, there is little permanent damage. Ingestion of bleach also presents a hazard, but this damage appears to be primarily due to the high alkalinity of the product." Beyond the minimal hazard to public health from the malfunction or molest ation of the disinfection equipment currently in use, measures currently in effect to further reduce health risks are:

1. UP&E personnel are trained in the safe transportation and handling of these substances and Level 1 Hazardous Materials Response.

2. Pump stations will be surrounded by a 7’ high chain -link fence with slats.

Chlorination facilities will be enclosed in chain lin k fences with slats and covered with a roof. The relatively large porosity of this enclosure will assist ambient air movement in dispersing any off gasses.

3. Placards will be posted at all pump sites advising that these chemicals are under use.

Fresno Co unty Environmental Health Department has requested that a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for GAC and/or chlorination facilities not be submitted unless and until Phase III is actually implemented. Business plans for other, nearly identically configured sites, using the same GAC equipment with similar flow rates and having identical operating procedures and requirements, have been approved by the Fresno County Health Department (reference C-90-40).

In conclusion, through Project design and intended safet y measures described above, the Project would not have a potentially significant adverse impact from hazards or hazardous materials related to the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 78
Less than Significant Impact. As described under item (a), through Project design and intended safety measures described, the Project would not have a potentially significant adverse impact from hazards or hazardous materials related to the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 0.60-miles from Orange Center Elementary School. As described under item (a) and (b) above, through Project design and intended safety measures described, the Project would not have a potentially significant adverse impact from hazards or hazardous materials related to the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database there are no listed hazardous sites in the vicinity of the Project site. Further, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the Project site found no hazardous material storage or recognized environmental conditions at the site. In addition, interviews did not indicate any negat ive environmental conditions associated with the property. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant 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 airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport approximately ± 4.50 miles northwest of the Project site. The applicable airport land use plan for Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport is the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December 2018. According to this land use plan, the Project site is located outside of the airport’s Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 79

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an ar ea undergoing extensive development and is thereby surrounded by existing infrastructure including roadways and utilities. Although the Project could result in temporary traffic detouring or closures during buildout, such delays would be temporary and woul d be coordinated with the City to ensure that safe access is maintained to and from the site. Further, the Project has been reviewed by City departments to ensure adequate site access and circulation is provided in the event of an emergency. For these reas ons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. Fresno is largely categorized as having little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is attributed to its impervious surface areas. The areas that are prone to wildfires are along the San Joaquin River Bluff due to steep terrain and vegetation. The P roject site is several miles south of the San Joaquin River Bluff.

Furthermore, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and is within an area of local responsibility.9 Given that the area in question is not considered a wildland, is not in a VHFHSZ, and would not be inhabited by people, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfires. In terms of urban fires, the Project would be constructed in compliance with fire code standards including emergency access . Prior to occupancy, the City would ensure proper operation.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hazards and hazardous materials related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

9 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on April 16, 2021, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 80

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

10. 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 81
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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of water for the City. In June 2004, the 30 Million Gallon Per Day (MGD) Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (“NESWTF”) began providing Fresno with water treated to drinking water standards and in May 2018, the 54 MGD Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (“SESWTF”) became operational. In order to meet demands anticipated by the growth implicit in the 2025 Fresno General Plan further construction of surface water treatments facilities and recycled water facilities will be required. Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s intentional recharge program at the City -owned Leaky Acres, Nielsen Recharge Facility, and smaller facilities in Southeast Fresno. Fresno holds contracts to surface water supplies from Mill erton Lake and contractual rights to surface water from Pine Flat Reservoir. In 2010, Fresno renewed its contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, which entitles the City to 60,000 acre-feet per year of Class 1 water into the extended future. This water supply has further increased the reliability of Fresno’s water supply.

The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Figure 4 -3 (incorporated by reference) illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals the City is implementing a host of strategies, including:

• Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of Fresno -Yosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;

• Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigat ion District for treatment at the City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 82
Northeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and the new Southeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and

Recycle wastewater at the Fresno -Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC-6-d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.

In addition, Fresno General Plan policies r equire the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.

Overall, Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Wa ter Management Plan, City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and the applicable mitigation measures of approved environmental review docume nts will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project's urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.

PROJECT DESIGN
To eliminate any potential bacterial contamination, the UP&E would disinfect the water using chlorination prior to distribution. Chlorination will take place through Sodium hypochlorite generation from common salt, injection of sodium hypochlorite solution, or calcium hypochlorite tables as described above in Section 8. H AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. In addition, Project design and normal operations will include the following.

• Filing of a Report of Waste Discharge to characterize backwash water and determine the appropriate level of permitting and any Discharge Requirements. • Measures to protect surface water and groundwater: The City of Fresno is directly responsible for ensuring that any discharge (e.g. pumped groundwater) during the project is permitted through appropriate waste discharge adopted by the CVWB or SWRCB.
• Filing of a Report of Waste Discharge to characterize backwash water and determine the appropriate level of permitting and any Discharge Requirements.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 83
• Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting regulations by filing a Notice of Intent (or notice of exemption). • Addition of Pump Station No. 372 to the City's Master Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which has standards for containment and handling of these chemicals, staff training, placarding, and spill response.

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact. To eliminate any potential bacterial contamination, the UP&E will disinfect the water using chlorination prior to distribution. Chlorination will take place through Sodium hypochlorite generation from common salt, injection of sodium hypochlorite solution, or calcium hypochlorite tables as described above in Sectio n 8.

Hazards and Hazardous Material. In addition, the Project design incorporates the following measures to reduce the impact on water quality.

Granular Activated Carbon
GAC facilities are utilized for the removal of less volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as DBCP, an agricultural pesticide found in much of the groundwater in the Fresno area.

Information relating to the GAC water filtration process was given by Cindy Forbes, District Engineer for the Water Programs Division, CDHS, which is responsible for the enforcement of state and federal safe drinking water acts and implementation of regulations. In a deposition taken on March 19, 1990, in the California Superior Court, she indicated that the GAC filtration water treatment process is the only viable treatment alternative available for the removal of DBCP. It is also a proven technology, state of the art, for the treatment of drinking water, recognized nationally by a cross -section of water districts, municipalities and other public entities.

Pumping of groundwater in the project area could potentially accelerate the migration of known contaminants toward the project site as well as to the surrounding areas. However, if this occurs, all water contaminated with synthetic organic compounds or industria l solvents drawn from the subject well site would be subjected to the GAC treatment process which will remove the contaminants.

Backwash water, used GA C slurry, and other solid waste or liquid effluent created by wellhead treatment shall be properly handl ed and/or disposed of according to its waste hazard classification. If the carbon material is reconditioned, the Department of Public City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 84
Utilities shall ensure that the GA C recycling facility has proper handling and disposal procedures, in order to limit the City's "cradle to grave" responsibility for potentially hazardous materials. Documentation of proper "chain of custody" of used GA C shall be a condition of any carbon change -out contracts. If the GA C is to be regenerated or incinerated, the Department of Public Utilities shall ensure that the regeneration facility is fully permitted for the designated procedure and that a certificate of regeneration or destruction is obtained for each GAC load.

Iron Manganese Filtration System
An Iron and Manganese Filtr ation System would be installed on the site. Well waters containing iron and/or manganese, along with other dissolved contaminants such as H2S, organic carbon, arsenic, etc., are treated with chlorine prior to filtration. This step oxidizes these contaminants to a process -able form and provides a free chlorine residual to the water distribution system. The filtration step collects the iron and manganese and is continuously monitored with a chlorine residual analyzer to ensure complete oxidation of the contaminants.

Air Stripping
Air stripping is a simple, easy to automate process. Water contaminated with VOC is introduced into the top of a vertical tower and dispersed by a liquid distribution system over a bed of specially designed packing material. Packing consists of hollow plastic balls (similar to whiffle balls) or cylinders with numerous openings. This packing creates a large water surface area by breaking the contaminated liquid into fine droplets as it flows toward the bottom of the tower. Air is blo wn counter -current to the water flow, through the packing. VOCs pass from the liquid phase into the upward flowing air.

Whether the air used in air stripping requires treatment depends on state regulations. If the contaminant concentration is below a specific limit, the air can simply be released to the atmosphere. Above that limit, it must be treated, typically by destroying the contamination using thermal combustion or catalytic oxidation, or by adsorbing the contaminants using vapor phase GAC.

Overall, Project design and compliance with existing policies and standards in place would prevent degradation of water quality, all of which has been assessed during entitlement review. In addition, the well would filter water using the systems mentioned above to improve the water quality for the general public. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 85
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than Significant Impact. The development and use of the pump station are not expected to have a significant effect on the environment. The aquifer serving the Fresno area exceeds an average thickness of 300 feet and is large enough to withstand long periods of drought with relatively minor environmental impacts. The groundwater typically rises during years of high precipitation and drops in low precipitation years (as during the drought years of 1987-1990). During 1987 and 1988 the average drop in the groundwater table City -wide was about 2 feet per year. By contrast, between 1982 and 1984 the average groundwater table City-wide rose 3.2 feet.

The City of Fresno is entitled to 60,000-acre feet of surface water from the Bureau of Reclamation and 85,000-acre feet from the Kings River. Presently the surface water is being used for recharge of groundwater at a rate of about fifty (50) percent of the amount that the City pumps out of the aquifer. This is considered to be a favorable ratio. To ensure a long-term adequate water supply for the Fresno area, the City is expanding its artificial recharge program.

Other sources of groundwater recharge include:
• Infiltration of direct precipitation;
• Subsurface inflows;
• Canal and intermittent stream seepage;
• Infiltration of storm water runoff at flood control basins; • Percolation of treated wastewater; and
• Deep percolation of excess applied water from domestic and agricultural irrigation

In addition, t he development of a pump station does not necessarily result in a net reduction of the groundwater. Groundwater recharge is currently adequate to mitigate any significant impact of well extraction. A well is intended to serve existing and planned urban development which itself was the subject to environmental and service delivery analysis.

For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 86
c) Substantially alter the existing drai nage 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? 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 substa ntial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an area undergoing development of industrial uses. The site is generally flat and does not contain streams or rivers that would be altered as a result of the Project. Further, some of the infrastructure surrounding the site, such as storm drains, are already in place or are planned to be installed from existing and ongoing development. In its current state, the site is pervious as it is undeveloped, and as a result, the Project would increase impervious surfaces by installing paving, concrete pads, and sidewalk s. However, the drainage pattern is proposed to be constructed per existing regulations and has been reviewed by the City and FMFCD to ensure proper drainage. Consequently, this review and approval by City engineers and FMFCD would mean that the Project result in a less-than-significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06047C045G dated February 18, 2009 .

Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazards with a 0.2 percent -annual-chance of flood (i.e., 500-year flood). Therefore, as a low-risk area, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project is subject to compliance with all water quality control plans and other hydrological requirements established by the City of Fresno. In fact, the installation of the well would help bring the Project into compliance with City goals City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 87
and policies for water quality control and su stainable groundwater management .

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hydrology and water quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 88

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

11. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
As mentioned above in the Project description, the Project site is located on the northwest corner of S. Northpointe Drive and Prime Avenue, between E . Central Avenue and E .

North Avenue. In general, the Project site is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. As a result, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses, as well as typical infrastructure such as roadways, streetlights, parking lots, and ambient light sources typical of industrial development.

DISCUSSION

a) Physically divide an established community?

Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community is associated with new, intersecting roadways, or new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses. The Project site is an undeveloped, vacant property within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. Thus, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses, as well as typical infrastructure such as roadways, streetlights, parking lots, and ambient light sources typical of industrial development. As a result, this area can generally be classified as an established community. Further, the City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 89
Project is consistent with the planned land uses and zone district, as it proposes the construction of a water supply well.

As such, the Project does not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as it will develop a vacant and undeveloped property with a use that is compatible with the planned and existing land uses within the area. Further, the Project does not propose any new roadways as it is within a developing area that has existing infrastructure (i.e., roadways). For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant 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?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed use of the Project site as a water supply well is consistent with the site land use designation and zone district. Further, through the entitlement process, the Project is reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.

Overall, the entitlement process will ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and any other applicable policies. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 90

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

12. 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

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?

No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. 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. Therefore, the Project would have 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?

No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. 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. Further, the site is not delineated on the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, therefore, it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 91
Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 92

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

13. 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 p roject area to
excessive noise levels?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
As previously mentioned, the Project site is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. As a result, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses and ambient noise typical of industrial development.

The City of Fresno Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the maximum appropriate noise level exposure (for residential land uses) for outdoor activity areas to be 65 dB DNL (decibels A weighted), 60 db DNL for stationary sources impinging upon residential uses, 45 db DNL for interior living areas.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 93
Fresno Municipal Code, Section 10-101, et seq. (i.e., the Noise Ordinance of the City of Fresno) sets forth the criteria for measuring and regulating noise em issions in the City.

The Ordinance prohibits any person from making any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorize d by or in accordance with this article. Ambient noise levels are established as follows.

Zone District Time Sound Level Decibels
Residential 10 pm to 7 am 50
Residential 7 pm to 10 pm 55
Residential 7 am to 7 pm 60
Commercial 10 pm to 7 am 60
Commercial 7 am to 10 pm 65
Industrial Anytime 70

Any noise or sound exceeding the ambient noise level at the property line by more than five (5) decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of section 10 - 105 of the Fresno Municipal Code.

In regard to pump stations, t he City of Fre sno relies on electrical power to operate its water production system. This system functions within the noise standard set by the General Plan and Fresno Municipal Code. With an inventory of over 250 wells, the lack of water service caused by electrical gr id failure may expose the public to clear and imminent danger by drastically reducing the fire suppression capabilities of the City or by precluding water supplies to correctional facilities, hospitals, or persons with medical conditions that require an un interrupted clean water supply. These potential impacts demand immediate action; an uninterrupted water service is necessary to restore property to a safe condition or to mitigate the effects of an electrical power failure until electricity is restored.

In response to this event, the UP&E developed an emergency plan to ensure a safe, reliable, and economical water supply in the event of future sustained blackouts. The foundation of the plan is an emergency power system to provide a baseline water service for limited domestic service and fire suppression uses in the event of an electrical power failure and until PG&E can restore electrical services. Designated pump stations will be permanently equipped with standby diesel-powered electrical generators (gen sets) that will automatically start when the water system pressure drops due to electrical power supply interruption. Power failure can occur on a citywide or local basis. Other elements of the emergency plan that are under development include coordination with other City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 94
emergency agencies, distribution system modifications, staffing plans, and a conservation program.

A gen set is a 100 to 400 horsepower diesel -powered electrical generator capable of generating up to 600 kilowatts of electricity and will be se lected to match the energy demand of the particular pump station. They will store diesel fuel in internal tanks in amounts sufficient to operate the engine for no less than eight hours. These fuel tanks will have secondary containment in the event of prima ry tank failure. Gen sets will be activated automatically in response to a drop in the water distribution system pressure due to widespread electrical power failure. They will stop once PG&E electrical power is restored. Other start-ups will include routine maintenance during daylight business hours.

Power supply will include the pump motor, radio telemetry equipment, and disinfection equipment. Gen sets will be used on an emergency basis during power outages. The generators will require periodic testing wi th a load approximately once a month and without a load approximately once a week, for short durations.

There are several important considerations that render this impact of gen sets as less than significant. Foremost, the gen sets will only provide water service for domestic and emergency use during an electrical power outage. This is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Second, an emergency is defined by the CEQA as an occurrence, not a condition; the emergency would be of limited duration and normal quiet pump station operations would resume with the restoration of grid system electrical power. Third, the provisions in the Fresno Municipal Code and the General Plan Noise Element are intended to address development issues with horizon s which may extend into decades, not hours. Noise impacts, therefore, are established and analyzed in the Ordinance and the General Plan on the basis of long-term duration of the noise event.

PROJECT DESIGN
The Project design incorporates the following measures in regard to noise impacts:

• Installation of critically quiet mufflers, structural screening, and/or waterproof cowling or ducting.
• Retention and/or installation of appropriate landscaping. • Installation and/or retention of a 7’ chain link fence.

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 City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 95
or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in increased ambient noise level at the Project site, compliance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-101, et seq requirements would result in the Project’s compliance with applicable standards. Two (2) noise generating sources of the Project would include construction (short -term, temporary) and operational (long-term) noise.

Short-Term Noise: Construction
Construction and testing of the water supply well pump station would result in short-term noise impacts. This is not expected to result in a significant impact because the noise would be generated during daylight hours and not during evening or more noise-sensitive time periods; a nd, the increase in noise would cease upon completion of the Project.

Further, pump station construction typically takes place in the midst of new development before an area is fully built -out or developed. As is the case for this Project, the site is within a developing industrial area that is experiencing ongoing development of vacant sites. For these reasons, the Project would have a less -than-significant impact in regard to construction noise impacts.

Long-Term Noise: Operations
As previously mentioned, the City of Fresno relies on electrical power to operate its water production system. According to the General Plan MEIR, noise will occur from motors and pumps, especially from natural -gas-powered engines used to operate the water supply well pump station. In addition to these engines, noise may be expected from the operation of an air blower during an air stripping process. If an air stripper is used, the blower would be housed in a facility on -site that would reduce the noise to a level compatible with the acceptable ambient noise levels established for industrial uses. Lastly, the Project site consists of space for a future emergency gen set (described above) on concrete pads that will store diesel fuel in internal tanks to operate the engine for no less than eight (8) hours.

Well sites are commonly located adjacent to residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

In this case, the proposed well site is adjacent to industrial uses. Thus, there are limited noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., residences, hospitals, schools) in proximity to the proposed gen set. However, to alleviate noise from the future gen set and other machinery operation, the gen set would be located 10’ from property lines and would be located on the southern portion of the site abutting the existing ponding basin. The pump station would also be surrounded by a 7’ perimeter chain -link fence with slabs, frontage landscaping, and a gate opening facing the street. This Project design would help buffer City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 96
the neighboring uses from the gen set noise when in operation. The gen set may also be equipped with critically quiet mufflers, structural screening, and/or a weatherproof cowling or ducting that will result in incidental noise reduction. Maintenance activities that require engine operation would be restricted to less sensitive hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Because the noise associated with the gen set would occur infrequently and only during weekday daylight hours or on a short -term emergency basis, the impacts normally associated with this noise level are not significant. This is consistent with the treatment by the Fresno Municipal Code Section 10 -109(a) of construction -related noise which is exempt provided such work takes place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on any day except Sunday. Finally, gen sets when in operation are determined to be "emergency work" and thus their operation is exempt from the Ordinance provisions. Therefore, wi th mitigation provided, the proposed project will not have a potentially significant adverse impact from noise. In conclusion, with the project design, impacts form noise will be less than significant.

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

Less than Significant Impact. As described under item (a) above, the Project is not expected to generate any potentially significant adverse impacts from noise. Construction noise impacts would be temporary and insignificant; and, operational noise impacts would be reduced by project design as described above . Further, construction or operation of the Project would not involve equipment that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Thus, because of the nature of the proposed use, the Project would result in minimal impacts related to groundborne vibration and noise levels.

c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two m iles 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. The nearest public use airport is the Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport approximately ± 4.50 miles northwest of the Project site. The applicable airport land use plan for Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport is the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December 2018. According to this land use plan, the Project site is located outside of the airport’s Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 97
Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 98

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

14. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is located on an undeveloped and vacant site that is planned for Employment – Heavy Industrial and is within the IH – Heavy Industrial Zone District. In general, the Project site is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. As a result, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses as well as typical infrastructure such as roadways and utilities.

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)?

Less than Significant Impact. Well sites are commonly located adjacent to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. In this case, the proposed well site is adjacent to existing and future industrial uses. Because the area is currently undergoing development, there is existing infrastructure in place such as roadways and utilities and the Project does not propose any new roadways or utilities. Further, the Project area is planned for growth in development of industrial uses. The Project is consistent with the planned land use City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 99
designation and zoning district for this area and would not require extension of roads or utilities. In addition, the Project does not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as it will develop a vacant and undeveloped property with a use that is compatible with the planned and existing land uses within the area. For these reasons, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly and would therefore have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is undeveloped, vacant, and planned for industrial uses. Adjacent properties are undergoing development for industrial uses.

Construction of the water well supply pump station on an undeveloped, vacant site planned for industrial uses within an industrial area would not displace people or housing.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 100

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

15. 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,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

X
i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is located within the incorporated area of Fresno and consists of the development of a water supply well system. No residences or businesses are proposed.

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 orde r to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The subject site is located City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 101
within two (2) miles of Fire Station No. 7. The Project would require a review and permit from City Fire and/or County Environmental Health for hazardous materials storage on -site. A permit is also required for the above ground fuel tank located inside the future generator. The installation of the generator must meet the requirements of the City of Fresno Fire Prevention Bureau Policy 01 - 32 and the Fire Department would require access to the site. As a condition of project approval, bypass locks would be required for all gates to allow emergency access to the site. For these reasons, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection services and thereby would have a less than significant impact.

ii. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The subject site is located within three (3) miles of the southeast Police Station. Due to the nature of the Project (i.e., an unmanned water supply well pump station), the Project would result in few (if any) calls for service and thereby would have a less than significant impact.

iii. Schools? No Impact. The Project does not include residential development that would generate a new population that would require any additional services and thereby would not result in the need for new or expanded school facilities. In addition, because the Project is a public facility, it is exempt from school fees.

iv. Parks? Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is located within a developing industrial area and, the Project itself would not result in new employees or residents . T hereby would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. However, to mitigate any potential impacts, the Project is subject to required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained.

v. Other public facilities? No Impact. As previously described, the Project would construct a water supply well on a vacant lot. The Project itself would not result in an increase in employees or residents that would require other public services such as libraries or post offices. Therefore, t he Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other public services.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 102
Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the public service-related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 103

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

16. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project is located on an undeveloped and vacant site that is planned for Employment – Heavy Industrial and is within the IH – Heavy Industrial Zone District. In general, the Project site is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites. As a result, the area is predominately characterized by industrial uses. There are no existing or planned parks within the Project vicinity.

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?

Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. Because of the nature of the Project, a water supply well pump station, and the characteristics of the Project area (i.e., industrial), there would be no increased demand for recreational services associated with the Project; rather, the Project would serve existing and planned uses for the Project area.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 104
However, to mitigate any potential impacts, the Project is subject to required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the physical condition of existing recreational facilities.

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

Less than Significant Impact. Given that the Project would not cause an increased need for recreational facilities, as described under item (a), the Project would not requi re the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. In addition, the Project does not propose parks or recreational facilities. However, to mitigate any potential impacts, the Project i s subject to required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 105

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

17. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), traffic impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) produced the “Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines” in July 2020 to provide regio nal guidance and recommendations for local agencies regarding VMT analysis, project screening, significance thresholds, and mitigation strategies.10 For local thresholds and guidelines, the City of Fresno adopted the “CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” on June 25, 2020, which provide Fresno-specific VMT thresholds and guidelines for VMT CEQA traffic analyses of projects and plans.11 Both guidance documents are based on the Office of Planning and

10 Fresno Council of Governments. 2020. Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.

Accessed April 29, 2021, https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fresno-COG-VMT- Report-1.pdf#nameddest=proj-screening
11 City of Fresno. 2020. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. Accessed April 29, 2021, https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/01/CEQA-Guidelines-for- Vehicle-Miles-Traveled-Final-Adopted-Version.pdf
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 106
Research’s “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” that was produced in 2018.12

According to the guidance for VMT CEQA traffic analyses, the first step is to determine if a project can be screened out using the project screening criteria . The following criteria are most applicable to the Project given the type of development and its location.

1. The project is located in a low -VMT zone (residential and office projects only).

The City of Fresno has elected to use the County as the region. The City of Fresno established a threshold for land use developments, specifically residential and office/industrial of 13 percent or more than the existing regional VMT per capita as indicative of a significant environmental impact. The Fresno COG develop ed the Fresno County – VMT Screening Application (i.e., the region-wide screening map) for use by local agencies in determining project VMT zones.

2. Project is a low trip generator (i.e. less than 500 daily trips generated). The City of Fresno’s threshold is based on the OPR recommendation of a volume of 110 average daily trips (ADT). This recommendation is based on a CEQA categorical exemption regarding development in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for a maximum planned development and where the project is not located in an environmentally sensible area.

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, LOS is not to be considered as a threshold of significance when looking at traffic impacts ; however, a brief analysis is provided because of the City’s General Plan policy related to maintaining acceptable LOS. The Project would be required to comply with all project level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicyc le and pedestrian facilities. The Project, during entitlement review, would be required to incorporate design standards and conditions contained in the Fresno Municipal Code and General Plan, some of which are intended

12 Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Accessed April 29, 2021, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 107
to increase alternative modes of trav el by requiring street design that accommodates multi-modal transportation facilities. Thus, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with a transportation related plan, policy or ordinance and the impact would be less than significant.

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

Vehicle Miles Traveled:

Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project ’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.

The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”

On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 108
be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

The City of Fresno VMT Thr esholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip ‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.”

The proposed Project is eligible to screen out because a s shown in Figure 17.1 , the Project site is categorized as “Low,” meaning that the parcel average VMT/employee is more than 13% lower than th e regional average. Regarding ADT, the estimated vehicle trips to the Project site are minimal and include a single vehicle for weekly well maintenance, bi -monthly chlorine deliveries, and monthly landscape maintenance. As such, the Project would generate only occasional maintenance vehicle trips to the site which would be less than expected for an industrial use and thereby less than the threshold volume of 110 ADT. In addition, the Project site is within an area that has existing public infrastructure (i. e., roadways) and is not within an environmentally sensitive area. For these reasons, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA and instead, would have a less than significant impact as it relates to VMT.

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

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

Less than Significant Impact. The Project design does not contain any features that would create a hazard or incompatible uses. The Project site is within an area that is undergoing development of industrial uses on vacant sites, and as a resu lt, is within an area with typical infrastructure such as roadways that have been previously constructed to City roadway standards. Further, the Project does not propose any incompatible uses as it is consistent with the planned land use designation and zo ning district. In addition, the Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire Department and Department of Public Works to ensure that the site layout conforms to applicable regulations and codes. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with and adhere to design and site layout guidelines and would thereby have a less than significant impact.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 109
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. Access points to the Project site have been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire Department and Department of Public Works to ensure that the site layout conforms to applicable regulations and codes, and thereby would remain accessible to emergency vehicles for emergenc y access. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 110
Figure 17.1. Fresno County – VMT Screening Threshold, Project Site

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 111

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

18. 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
section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 112

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine potential effects of proposed projects on a tribal cultural resource. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (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 Registe r 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 hom e to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be availa ble from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to AB 52. On March 22, 2021, consistent with AB 52, invitations to consult on the Project were mailed to the two (2) tribes within the Project area. Pursuant to AB 52, tribes have up to 30 days to request consultation. No requests for consultation were requested during that time. The 30 -day period ended on April 20, 2021. Both tribes did not request consultation.

Further, Peak & Associates, Inc. conducted a records search and map review on April 6, 2021. The records search was conducted through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, determining that a portion of the site had been surveyed in 2014 for the South Fresno Economic Development Project Work Area for which construction is now underway. The closest resource identified was a segment of the Central Canal, 0.10 miles south of the Project site. The historical map review showed no natural water course, buildings, or structures in or near the Project area. Overall, the resulting Cultural City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 113
Resources Evaluation Technical Memo determined that for these reasons, no further cultural resources studies are warranted or needed.

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 Resour ces Code section 5020.1(k), or

No Impact. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, the Project site does not contain any property or site features that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local regis ter of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). As such, the Project would have 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.

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the City invited two (2) tribes to consult on the Project under AB 52. No tribes requested consultation within the 30 -day response period. While there is no evidence that tribal cultural resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that hidden and buried resources may exist in the area with no surface evidence. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown resources before or during grading activities, t he proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the General Plan MEIR. With incorporation of these measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 114
Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 115

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

19. 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
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 116

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project proposes the construction of a water supply well pump station to supply potable water via upgrades to the water supply system. No residential uses are proposed as part of this Project; and, the Project is within an area predominately characterized by existing and future industrial uses. Furthermore, given the nature of the Project, operations would be controlled remotely with limited staff visits for maintenance and check-ins.

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?

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would have a less than significant impact on water, wastewater, stormwater drainage facilities, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities and would not result in the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects:

i. Water. The purpose of the Project is to enable the City to supply potable water through upgrades to the water supply system, by constructing a new water supply well pump station. As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the General Plan policies, multiple regional, area and City water management planning documents, and the applicable mitigation measures of approved environmental review documents will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project's urban domestic and public saf ety consumptive purposes. The installation and operation of the well and wellhead treatment will ensure an available supply of potable water. Thus, operation of the well will not in and of itself signify a corresponding increase in groundwater use. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on water facilities.

ii. Wastewater. The Project would include a new wastewater connection to account for wastewater generated from any chlorine injection. However, the wastewater generated would be minimal as the Project proposes the construction and operation of a water supply well pump station which would be operated remotely. Therefore, staf f visits to the site would be limited to maintenance and check -ins on the facility. Further, the Department of Public City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 117
Utilities reviewed the Project and confirmed that sanitary sewer facilities are available to provide service to the Project site subject t o installation requirements. For these reasons, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

iii. Stormwater Drainage Facilities. Storm water facilities have been provided to the Project site as improvements required for de velopment of the Project area and are currently in place. The new well would connect to existing water mains and facilities located within existing public street rights-of-way and subsequently connected to the existing public water infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on stormwater drainage facilities.

iv. Electrical Power. The Project would be served by PG&E and would not require extensions of energy infrastructure or new energy supplies. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to electrical power.

v. Natural Gas. The Project does not include any natural gas utility improvements.

Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facil ities. As such, the Project would not result in impacts related to natural gas.

vi. Telecommunications. Given the nature of the Project (i.e., water supply well pump station), the Project would not increase the demand for telecommunications facilities, nor would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunicat ions facilities.

Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to telecommunications.

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

Less than Significant Impact. As stated in criteria (a) above, the Project would ensure an available supply of potable water within an area that is undergoing development. Thus, operation of the well will not in and of itself signify a corresponding increase in groundwater use and therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

c) 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?
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 118

Last than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction and operation of a water supply well pump station which would be operated remotely. Therefore, staff visits to the site would be limited to maintenance and check-ins on the facility. Furthermore, the Project would not include new wastewater connections and as a result, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity are not applicable. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant 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?

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped and has been cleared and modified to accommodate storage of construction equipment for development adjacent to the site. Therefore, Project construction is not expected to generate significant amounts of solid was te during construction given that there are no existing structures or features on -site. In addition, operation of the Project would occur remotely and there would be no on-site staff. As a result, the Project operations would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste. Therefore, any solid waste generated by the Project would be limited due to the nature of the use . Section VIII, for hazardous wastes requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan relating to the procedures and safe operation of the proposed GAC facilities being prepared by the UP&E and approved by the County Environmental Health Department prior to commencement of operation of the GAC facilities. This Hazardous Materials Business Plan details all necessary procedures and safety measures i n the event of an emergency or the remote possibility that an accidental release of spent carbon may occur. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Project construction and operations would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste and thus, the Project would not conflict with any federal, state, and l ocal management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste . If solid waste is generated, the Project would be subject to compliance with existing and future statutes and regulations by the City, state, or federal law. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 119
Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the utilities and service systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated June 21, 2021.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 120

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

20. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fresno is largely categorized as having little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is attributed to its impervious surface areas. The areas that are prone to wildfires are along the San Joaquin River Bluff due to steep terrain and vegetation.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 121

DISCUSSION

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

Less than Significant Impact . The Project would be required to comply with adopted emergency response plans. As such, any wildfire risk to the Project or people would be less than significant.

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?

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is several miles south of the San Joaquin River Bluff. Furthermore, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and is within an area of local responsibility. 13 Given that the area in question is not considered a wildland, is not in a VHFHSZ, and would not be inhabited by people, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfires.

In terms of urban fires, the Project would be constructed in compliance with fire code standards including emergency access. Prior to occupancy, the City would ensure proper operation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

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?

No Impact. The Project is located within a developing industrial area of the city and is surrounded by existing i ndustrial uses and ongoing industrial development of vacant sites and thus will not require the installation or maintenance of facilities that may exacerbate fire risk or result in 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?

13 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on April 16, 2021, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 122
No Impact. The Project site is an infill property adjacent to existing industrial uses and ongoing industrial developmen t of vacant sites. Further, the site is relatively flat.

Therefore, the Project would have no impact given the highly developed nature of the area, the lack of slopes, and lack of conditions that increase wildfire risk.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 123

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

21. 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 ani mal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 124

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 plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be i mplemented through the tentative tract map process will be incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. In addition, General Plan MEIR Mitigation measures and project specific mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulativ ely 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.)

Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental po licies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable.

All project -related impacts were determined to be less than significant. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insig nificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 125
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than Significant Impac t. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 126
References
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a)(3), the following expert opinion, technical studies, and substantial evidence has been referenced and/or cited in the discussion included in the Initial Study.

Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.”

California Department of Conservation, “California Important Farmland Finder.”

California Department of Conservation, “EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.”

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, “Biogeographic Information and O bservation System.”

California Department of General Services, “CALGreen.”

California Energy Commission, “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.”

California Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:

A Community Health Perspective.

Caltrans, “Scenic Highways,” California Department of Transportation.

City of Fresno. (2020). Program Environmental Impact Report, Public Review Draft.

City of Fresno. (2020). CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds.

City of Fresno, California. (2014). City of Fresno General Plan.

City of Fresno, California. (2021). City of Fresno Municipal Code.

Fresno Council of Governments. (2020). Fresno County – VMT Screening Application.

Fresno Council of Governments. (2020). Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2018)

Office of Planning and Research. (2018). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2000). Environmental Review Guidelines: Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 127

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009). Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.

US Department of Agriculture, Na tural Resources Conservation Service, “Web Soil Survey.”

USGS, “National Wetlands Inventory.”

City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 128
Report Preparation
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8070

Contacts:

Jose Valenzuela
[email protected]

Initial Study Consultant
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500

Contacts:

Bonique Emerson, AICP, Planning Division Manager
[email protected]
Jenna Chilingerian, Associate Planner
[email protected]

Peak & Associates (Cultural Resources)
3941 Park Drive Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405

Contacts:

Melinda A. Peak, Principal Investigator
[email protected]

Argonaut Ecological, Inc. (Biological Resources)
2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100
Gold River, CA 93670
(916) 803-1454

Contacts:

Kathy Kinsland, Sr. Scientist
[email protected]
City of Fresno – Water Well Pump Station No. 372
Public Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 129
Appendix A: CalEEMOD Results Summary (Annual & BAU)
Performed by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. on April 21, 2021, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.

Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - No structures on site, so demolition is not required.

Demolition -
Trips and VMT - No demolition is required.

Vehicle Trips - The facility is unmanned and does not have any employees or visitors.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Light Industry

15.00 1000sqft

0.34 15,000.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Pump Station 372
Fresno County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

10.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
10/15/2021
10/3/2021
tblTripsAndVMT
WorkerTripNumber

10.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

1.32 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

0.68 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

6.97 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.0221

0.2250

0.2036

3.4000e-
004

2.7100e-
003

0.0122

0.0149

9.0000e-
004

0.0113

0.0122

0.0000

30.0049

30.0049

8.9400e-
003

0.0000

30.2285
2022

0.1237

0.1925

0.1990

3.4000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

9.8900e-
003

0.0117

5.0000e-
004

9.1300e-
003

9.6300e-
003

0.0000

29.5267

29.5267

8.6800e-
003

0.0000

29.7437
Maximum

0.1237

0.2250

0.2036

3.4000e-
004

2.7100e-
003

0.0122

0.0149

9.0000e-
004

0.0113

0.0122

0.0000

30.0049

30.0049

8.9400e-
003

0.0000

30.2285
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.0221

0.2250

0.2036

3.4000e-
004

2.7100e-
003

0.0122

0.0149

9.0000e-
004

0.0113

0.0122

0.0000

30.0049

30.0049

8.9400e-
003

0.0000

30.2285
2022

0.1237

0.1925

0.1990

3.4000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

9.8900e-
003

0.0117

5.0000e-
004

9.1300e-
003

9.6300e-
003

0.0000

29.5267

29.5267

8.6800e-
003

0.0000

29.7436
Maximum

0.1237

0.2250

0.2036

3.4000e-
004

2.7100e-
003

0.0122

0.0149

9.0000e-
004

0.0113

0.0122

0.0000

30.0049

30.0049

8.9400e-
003

0.0000

30.2285
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.0690

0.0000

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

2.9000e-
004
Energy

1.6900e-
003

0.0154

0.0129

9.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

0.0000

55.1931

55.1931

2.0600e-
003

6.7000e-
004

55.4432
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

3.7756

0.0000

3.7756

0.2231

0.0000

9.3540
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.1005

5.4602

6.5607

0.1133

2.7200e-
003

10.2032
Total

0.0707

0.0154

0.0130

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

0.0000

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

4.8761

60.6536

65.5297

0.3385

3.3900e-
003

75.0006
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 10-4-2021
1-3-2022

0.2557

0.2557
2 1-4-2022
4-3-2022

0.3100

0.3100
Highest

0.3100

0.3100
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.0690

0.0000

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

2.9000e-
004
Energy

1.6900e-
003

0.0154

0.0129

9.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

0.0000

55.1931

55.1931

2.0600e-
003

6.7000e-
004

55.4432
Mobile

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Waste

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

3.7756

0.0000

3.7756

0.2231

0.0000

9.3540
Water

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

1.1005

5.4602

6.5607

0.1133

2.7200e-
003

10.2032
Total

0.0707

0.0154

0.0130

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

0.0000

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

4.8761

60.6536

65.5297

0.3385

3.3900e-
003

75.0006
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
10/4/2021
10/3/2021
5 0
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
10/16/2021
10/18/2021
5 1
3 Grading
Grading
10/19/2021
10/20/2021
5 2
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
10/21/2021
3/9/2022
5 100
5 Paving
Paving
3/10/2022
3/16/2022
5 5
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
3/17/2022
3/23/2022
5 5
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 22,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 7,500; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
4 6.00
9 0.56
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Grading
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Building Construction
Cranes
1 4.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
2 6.00
89 0.20
Site Preparation
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Paving
Pavers
1 7.00
130

0.42 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00
80 0.38
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.40 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 1.00
247

0.40 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 8.00
97 0.37
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.37
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 6.00
97 0.37
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 7.00
97 0.37
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
4 0.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
2 5.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4 10.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
5 6.00

2.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 1.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

2.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.2000e-
004

3.9100e-
003

2.0100e-
003

0.0000

1.5000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4276

0.4276

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4310
Total

3.2000e-
004

3.9100e-
003

2.0100e-
003

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

4.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.4276

0.4276

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4310
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0167

0.0167

0.0000

0.0000

0.0167
Total

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0167

0.0167

0.0000

0.0000

0.0167
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

2.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.2000e-
004

3.9100e-
003

2.0100e-
003

0.0000

1.5000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4276

0.4276

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4310
Total

3.2000e-
004

3.9100e-
003

2.0100e-
003

0.0000

2.7000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

4.2000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

0.4276

0.4276

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

0.4310
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0167

0.0167

0.0000

0.0000

0.0167
Total

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0167

0.0167

0.0000

0.0000

0.0167
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

7.5000e-
004

0.0000

7.5000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

8.0000e-
004

7.2500e-
003

7.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0409

1.0409

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0458
Total

8.0000e-
004

7.2500e-
003

7.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

1.1600e-
003

4.1000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0409

1.0409

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0458
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0668

0.0668

0.0000

0.0000

0.0669
Total

4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0668

0.0668

0.0000

0.0000

0.0669
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

7.5000e-
004

0.0000

7.5000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

8.0000e-
004

7.2500e-
003

7.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0409

1.0409

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0458
Total

8.0000e-
004

7.2500e-
003

7.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

1.1600e-
003

4.1000e-
004

3.9000e-
004

8.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0409

1.0409

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.0458
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0668

0.0668

0.0000

0.0000

0.0669
Total

4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0668

0.0668

0.0000

0.0000

0.0669
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0202

0.2076

0.1889

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0116

0.0107

0.0107

0.0000

26.0213

26.0213

8.4200e-
003

0.0000

26.2317
Total

0.0202

0.2076

0.1889

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0116

0.0107

0.0107

0.0000

26.0213

26.0213

8.4200e-
003

0.0000

26.2317
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.6000e-
004

5.8500e-
003

8.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.3892

1.3892

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

1.3934
Worker

6.2000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

3.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2500e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0424

1.0424

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0431
Total

7.8000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

4.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.5900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.6100e-
003

4.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.4316

2.4316

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.4364
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0202

0.2076

0.1889

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0116

0.0107

0.0107

0.0000

26.0213

26.0213

8.4200e-
003

0.0000

26.2317
Total

0.0202

0.2076

0.1889

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0116

0.0107

0.0107

0.0000

26.0213

26.0213

8.4200e-
003

0.0000

26.2317
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.6000e-
004

5.8500e-
003

8.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.3892

1.3892

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

1.3934
Worker

6.2000e-
004

3.8000e-
004

3.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.2500e-
003

3.3000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000

1.0424

1.0424

3.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0431
Total

7.8000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

4.8200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.5900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.6100e-
003

4.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.4316

2.4316

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.4364
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0165

0.1686

0.1717

2.7000e-
004

8.9300e-
003

8.9300e-
003

8.2100e-
003

8.2100e-
003

0.0000

24.0355

24.0355

7.7700e-
003

0.0000

24.2298
Total

0.0165

0.1686

0.1717

2.7000e-
004

8.9300e-
003

8.9300e-
003

8.2100e-
003

8.2100e-
003

0.0000

24.0355

24.0355

7.7700e-
003

0.0000

24.2298
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.3000e-
004

5.1200e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.2701

1.2701

1.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2738
Worker

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

3.3100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

3.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.9277

0.9277

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9282
Total

6.6000e-
004

5.4300e-
003

4.0700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.4900e-
003

4.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

2.1977

2.1977

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2020
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0165

0.1686

0.1717

2.7000e-
004

8.9300e-
003

8.9300e-
003

8.2100e-
003

8.2100e-
003

0.0000

24.0354

24.0354

7.7700e-
003

0.0000

24.2298
Total

0.0165

0.1686

0.1717

2.7000e-
004

8.9300e-
003

8.9300e-
003

8.2100e-
003

8.2100e-
003

0.0000

24.0354

24.0354

7.7700e-
003

0.0000

24.2298
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

1.3000e-
004

5.1200e-
003

7.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.2701

1.2701

1.5000e-
004

0.0000

1.2738
Worker

5.3000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

3.3100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1600e-
003

3.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.9277

0.9277

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9282
Total

6.6000e-
004

5.4300e-
003

4.0700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.4900e-
003

4.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000

2.1977

2.1977

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.2020
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

1.6200e-
003

0.0148

0.0176

3.0000e-
005

7.4000e-
004

7.4000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000

2.3492

2.3492

6.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3663
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.6200e-
003

0.0148

0.0176

3.0000e-
005

7.4000e-
004

7.4000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000

2.3492

2.3492

6.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3663
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.2899

0.2899

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2901
Total

1.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.2899

0.2899

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2901
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

1.6200e-
003

0.0148

0.0176

3.0000e-
005

7.4000e-
004

7.4000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000

2.3492

2.3492

6.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3663
Paving

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.6200e-
003

0.0148

0.0176

3.0000e-
005

7.4000e-
004

7.4000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000

2.3492

2.3492

6.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.3663
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.2899

0.2899

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2901
Total

1.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

0.0000

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.2899

0.2899

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2901
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.1043

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

5.1000e-
004

3.5200e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6383

0.6383

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6394
Total

0.1048

3.5200e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6383

0.6383

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6394
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM

Pump Station 372 - Fresno County, Annual

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0161

0.0161

0.0000

0.0000

0.0161
Total

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0161

0.0161

0.0000

0.0000

0.0161
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.1043

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

5.1000e-
004

3.5200e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6383

0.6383

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6394
Total

0.1048

3.5200e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.6383

0.6383

4.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6394
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 4/21/2021 1:11 PM