22-1024 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration — Fresno City Council, June 30, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Milburn/Dakota Park
March 2021
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Prepared By: Prepared For:

The City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec
tion 1: Initial Study/MND Process 1-1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 1-1

1.2 Initial Study 1-2

1.3 Environmental Checklist 1-2

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Notice of Preparation 1-2

1.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3

1.6 Intended Uses of the Environmental Assessment, Initial Study 1-3

1.7 Notice of Determination 1-4

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart 1-5
Sec
tion 2: Project Description 2-1

2.1 Project Description & Purpose 2-1

2.2 Project Location 2-1

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals 2-1
Sec
tion 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-1

3.1 Purpose 3-1

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2

3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3-8

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-9

3.5 Environmental Analysis 3-10
I. Aesthetics 3- 10
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-16
III. Air Quality 3-21
IV. Biological Resources 3-29
V. Cultural Resources 3-37
VI. Energy 3-42
VII. Geology and Soils 3-46
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-54
IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-59
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 3-64
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-72
XII. Mineral Resources 3-76
XIII. Noise 3-78
XIV. Population and Housing 3-82
XV. Public Services 3-84
XVI. Parks and Recreation 3-86
XVII. Transportation 3-89
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-93
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-98
XX. Wildfire 3-103
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-105

3.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3-107

3.7 Sup
porting Information and Sources
Section 4: List of Report Preparers
3-111
4-1
Appe
ndices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Report
Appendix B: Biological Assessment
Appendix C: C ultural Records Search Results
Appendix D: Fuel Use Calculations
List of
Figures
2-1 Regional Location 2-2
2-2 Vicinity Map 2-3
2-3 Site Plan 2-4
3-1 Vicinity Map 3-6
3-2 Milburn/Dakota Conceptual Site Plan 3-7
3-3 Soils Map 3-49
3-4 Flood Zones 3-67
3-5 General Plan Land Use Map 3-72
3-6
Zoning Map 3-74
3-7 City of Fresno average VMT/Capita 3-89
List of
Tables
3-1 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status 3-21
3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-23
3-3 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants 3-25 3-4 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction 3-26 3-5 Projected Project Emissions for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations 3-27 3-6 Special Status Species Findings 3-33
3-7 2018 PG&E and State average power resources 3-42
3-8 On-Road Mobile Fuel Use 3-44
3-9 Greenhouse Gases 3-55
3-10 Project Consistency with GHG Reduction Plan Strategies 3-58 3-11 Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 3-79 Section 1
Initial Study/Negative
Declaration Process
1-1

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno CA 93721

SECTION 1
CEQA Review Process

Project Title: Milburn/Dakota Park

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines

Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:

(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;

(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;

(3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:

(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,

(B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,

(D) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.

(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;

(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment

(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;

(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1-2

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

1.2 Initial Study

This document is the Initial Study for the proposed construction and operation of a neighborhood park located within the City of Fresno. The City of Fresno will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

1.3 Environmental Checklist

The Lead Agency may use the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(d)(3) and (f)] in preparation of an Initial Study to provide information for determination if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is set forth in Section Three.

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration

The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent t o Adopt a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the County Clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) for a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration sha ll be not less than 20 days.

Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by the City of Fresno prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:

1. Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns;

2. Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision- makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and

3. Provide a forum for public participation in the decision -making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.

According to Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Environmental Checklist Discussion contained in Section Three of this document has determined that the environmental impacts of the project are less than significant with mitigation measures and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for adoption by the Lead Agency.

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration

The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:

(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.

1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration documents

The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals.

The City of Fresno, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1-4

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)

The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:

(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse. (2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies.

1-5

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

1.8 CEQA Process Flow Chart

Section 2

Project Description

2-1

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno CA 93721

SECTION 2
Project Description

Project Title: Milburn/Dakota Park

2.1 Project Description and Purpose

The proposed project involves the development of a neighborhood park on approximately 4.5 acres of vacant land currently zoned as Park and Recreation. Proposed park amenities include a multi -use field, covered stage, playgrounds, a water play area, restrooms, picnic shelters, a rubberized jogging track, a dog park, multi-use courts for tennis, basketball, futsal, and pickleball, and an exercise area. Trees will be planted along the perimeter of the park site.

2.2 Project Location

The proposed project site is located within the City of Fresno at 3520 N. Milburn Avenue. The project involves construction on approximately 4.5 acres on Parcel APN 511-200-30T. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by John Steinbeck Elementary School to the north, and low to medium residential density to the east, south, and west. The project site is designated as Park and Recreation by the City of Fresno Zoning Code and as Open Space - Neighborhood Park by the City of Fresno General Plan. The site is currently undeveloped vacant land.

2.3 Other Permits and Approvals

The following discretionary approvals are required from the City of Fresno for the proposed project:

• CUP/Development Permit

2-2

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 2-1
2-3

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 2-2
2-4

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 2-3 Site Plan

Section 3

Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts

3-1

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno CA 93721

SECTION 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Project Title: Milburn/Dakota Park

This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction of Milburn/Dakota Park in the City of Fresno. The proposed project site is approximately 4.5 acres and is located on the northeast corner of W. Dakota Avenue and N. Milburn Avenue, approximately 7 miles northwest of the City of Fresno Downtown Core. Project construction is anticipated to begin in April 2023 and continue through March 2024. The City of Fresno will act as Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this environmental do cument is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the basic purposes of CEQA as follows.

(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives o r mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). According to Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed t o by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

3-2

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

3.2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Project Title: Milburn/Dakota Park

2. Lead Agency: City of Fresno
Contact Person: Diane Printz-White
1515 E Divisadero Street
Fresno CA 93721
Phone Number: (559) 621-2955

3. Applicant: City of Fresno, PARCS
Contact Person: TJ Miller
1515 E Divisadero Street
Fresno, CA 93271
(559) 621-2900

4. Project Location: The proposed project site is located within the City of Fresno, at the northeast corner of West Dakota Avenue and North Milburn Avenue, at 3520 N. Milburn Avenue. The project site is approximately 7 miles northwest of the City of Fresno Downtown Core. The project invol ves construction on approximately 4.5 acres on Parcel APN 511 -200-30T. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by John Steinbeck Elementary School to the north, and low to medium residential density to the east, south, and west. The project site is designated as Park and Recreation by the City of Fresno Zoning Code and as Open Space - Neighborhood Park by the City of Fresno General Plan.

The site is currently undeveloped vacant land.

5. General Plan Designation: The proposed project site is designated as Open Space - Neighborhood Park by the City of Fresno General Plan.

6. Zoning Designation: The proposed project site is zoned by the City of Fresno as Park and Recreation.

7. Project Description: The proposed project involves the development of a neighborhood park on approximately 4.5 acres of vacant land currently zoned as Park and Recreation. Proposed park amenities include a multi-use field, covered stage, playgrounds, a water play area, restrooms, picnic shelters, a rubberized jogging track, a dog park, multi -use courts for tennis, basketball, futsal, and pickleball, and an exercise area. Trees will be planted along the perimeter of the park site.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:

North Public Institutional - (City of Fresno General Plan) South Residential – Medium Low Density (City of Fresno General Plan) East Residential – Medium Low Density (City of Fresno General Plan) West Residential – Medium Density (City of Fresno General Plan)

3-3

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals a re required from the City of Fresno for the proposed project:

• CUP/Development Permit

10. Native American Consultation: 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 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 p laces, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or 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.

Note: Conducting consultati on 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 als o note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumn a Wo Wah were invited to consult under AB 52. The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on December 17, 2020.

Under invitations to consult under AB 52, neither contacted tribe responded.

11. Parking and access: Vehicular access to the project is available via West Dakota Avenue . During construction, workers will utilize existing parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking of vehicles and equipment.

12. Landscaping and Design: The landscape and design plans will be required during building permit submittal.
3-4

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

13. Utilities and Electrical Services: The City of Fresno currently provides water, sewer, and stormwater services to the area. Electrical services are currently provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The proposed project will require the construction and extension of utility lines to provide service to the park.
3-5

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Acronyms

BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
ISMND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
ND Negative Declaration
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROW Right-of-Way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SHPO St ate Historic Preservation Office
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
3-6

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-1
3-7

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-2. Milburn/Dakota Park Conceptual Site Plan

3-8

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “ No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following.

• Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. • Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures b ased on the earlier analysis.
• Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mi tigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

3-9

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

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

 Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services  Agriculture and Forest Resources  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation  Air Quality  Hydrology and Water Quality  Transportation  Biological Resources  Land Use and Planning  Tribal Cultural Resources  Cultural Resources  Mineral Resources  Utilities and Service System  Energy  Noise  Wildfire
 Geology and soils  Population  Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.

 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

________________________________________ ______________________

SIGNATURE DATE

__________________________ City of Fresno

PRINTED NAME AGENCY

3-10

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identify mitigation measures, if applicable.

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource Code
Section 210999, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?    
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within state
scenic highway?
   
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 a
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?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
   

Environmental Setting

Scenic Resources: Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing. They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The City of Fresno General Plan MEIR states that scenic resources within the Planning Area include landscaped open spaces such as parks and golf courses. Additional scenic resources around the region include areas along the San Joaquin River due to the topographic variation in the relatively flat San Joaquin Valley. The River bluffs provide a unique geological feature in the San Joaquin Valley. Historic structures in Downtown Fresno buildings also represent scenic resources because they provide a unique skyline.

Scenic Vistas: While the City of Fresno General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas, the City of Fresno General Plan MEIR states that some areas within the City of Fresno could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the San Joaquin River and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountai n Range.

The River bluffs provide distant views of the San Joaquin River as well as areas north of the River. The MEIR states that the majority of these views are from private property. 3-11

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Existing Visual Character: The following photos demonstrate the existing conditions in the project area.

As shown, the proposed project site is located in a relatively flat and grassy area.

Photo 1: Project site looking north Photo 2: Project site looking east

Photo 3: Project site looking south Photo 4: Project site looking west

Regulatory Setting

Scenic Roadways: The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 by the state Legislature for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through conservation strategies. The State Scenic Highway Sy stem includes a list of highways that have either been officially designated, or are eligible for designation. State laws affiliated with governing the scenic highway program can be found in Sections 260-263 in The Street and Highways Code.

State Scenic Highways: According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of Stat e Scenic Highways), the County of Fresno does not have officially designated State Scenic Highways , however Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways. The nearest eligible highways are SR 180, approximately 7 miles east of the City boundary, and SR 168, approximately 5 miles east of the City of Clovis.

City of Fresno Scenic Corridors and Boulevards: The Public Facilities Element of the City of Fresno General Plan identifies the following as designated scenic corridors or boulevards:

• Van Ness Boulevard – Weldon to Shaw

3-12

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• Van Ness Extension – Shaw to San Joaquin River Bluff
• Kearney Boulevard – Fresno Street to Polk
• V
an Ness-F
ulton couplet – Weldon to Divisadero
• B
utler Avenue – Peach to Fowler
• Minnewawa Avenue – Belmont to Central Canal
• Huntington Boulevard – First to Cedar
• Shepard Avenue – Friant to Willow
• Audubon Drive – Blackstone to Herndon
• Friant Road – Audubon to Millerton Road
• Tulare Avenue – Sunnyside to Armstrong
• Ashlan Avenue – Palm to Maroa

City of Fresno General Plan: The General Plan governs the distribution and intensity of land uses, sets the principles for evaluating development and guides the developm ent and growth of the City. The Urban Form Element of the City of Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies for aesthetic resources that relate to the proposed project:

C‐19. OBJECTIVE: Develop and implement streetscape plans to establish cohesive and aesthetic major and local street design patterns by using distinctive features.

• C-
19-
a. Policy. Use a well-b
alanced variety and spacing of trees with standards established by the city's Parks Division to establish visual continuity for each streetscape and to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces.
• C-
19-
b. Policy. Properties fronting on major streets shall be improved with landscaped setbacks and sidewalks which reflect a continuity of design, depth, and planting materials. This should include unified design of street furniture and walls.
• C-
19-
c. Policy. Pursue, through use of both public and private funding, full landscaping of all completed median islands.
• C-
19-
d. Policy. Where appropriate, local streets should be developed as “urban parkways” with landscaping and pedestrian spaces.
• C-
19-
e. Policy. Working with utility companies the city will continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

C
‐20. OBJECTIVE: As part of the city's project review process, major emphasis will be given to site and building design in order to preserve functionality and community aesthetics.

• C-
20-
a. Policy. Utilize plan implementation /advisory committees, as established through adopted community plans and/or specific plans and city council actions, to review and make recommendations on proposed developments.
• C-
20-
b. Policy. Consider implementation of the recommendations of the Architectural Review Committee as contained in the Design Review Guidelines manual of January 2002 submitted to the Planning and Development Department.
• C-20
-c.

Policy. Consider innovative lot designs and patterns to enhance community livability in residential projects and to most efficiently utilize land for all types of projects. 3-13

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• C-2 0 -d . Policy. Development projects shall be designed with appropriate layouts tha t provide sufficient areas for all proposed activities, for support functions, and for efficient and safe vehicular and pedestrian access.
• C-
20-
e. Policy Development projects shall include aesthetic measures which support functionality and add to the appearance and livability of the community. • C-
20-
f. Policy The project developer shall provide a set of documents and drawings that will allow assessment of the final building product. Materials, texture, and colors shall be noted on the original special permit drawings and on construction plans. • C-
20-
g. Policy. Standards and guidelines shall ensure that metal buildings functi on as an acceptable and economical form of structures in specially defined areas, including areas adjacent to existing residential neighb orhoods, along gateways, and areas adjacent to listed historic structures.

C‐

22. OBJECTIVE: The city will focus effort s on maintaining and improving area health, safety, quality of life, image, and attractiveness through programs which prevent and abate blighting influences.

• C-
22-
a. Policy. The city will implement its newly expanded and proactive Code Enforcement Division activity to remove more public nuisances in a timely manner, through the following:
• m
aintain efficiency in resolving complaints, and institute proactive code enforcement programs which can abate violations before they engender complaints. • utilize the Ext erior Building Maintenance Ordinance to implement required renovation or removal of unsafe, unsightly structural conditions.
• continue to expedite seasonal weed abatement.
• establish a coordination program among the Code Enforcement Division, City Business Licensing, and the Planning and Development Department to ensure that businesses obtain required entitlements and remain in conformance with established land use conditions and city ordinances (including signage regulations).
• seek grant funding to improve Fresno's tire abatement program. • work with the Police Department to increase prosecution of illegal dumping. • improve cost recovery practices so that violators reimburse the city for code enforcement activity.
• C-
22-
b. Policy. Maintain and enhance, as feasible, Community Sanitation's efforts toward litter • c
lean-u
p and abatement of trash stockpiles on public and private streets. • C-2
2-c
. Policy. Pursue funding for, and support of, building facade improvement programs to • r
efurbish older commercial districts.
• C-
22-
d. Policy. Continue and expand the city's effective Graffiti Abatement Program.

C
ity of Fresno Zoning Ordinance: The General Plan governs the distribution and intensity of land uses, sets the principles for evaluating development and guides the development and growth of the City. The Zoning Ordinance establishes specific development criteria for each zoning district (i.e. parking requirements, walls, fencing, setbacks, building height, etc.).

3-14

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The San Joaquin River and the Sierra Nevada Mountains are the primary scenic vista within this region. The San Joaquin River is approximately

5.60 miles north of the proposed project site and the Sierra Nevada foothills are approximately 25 miles east of the project site. The San Joaquin River and Sierra Nevada mountains are not visible from the proposed project site due to the extensive urban development between the project site and these features. There is no impact.

b) Would the project s ubstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway?

No Impact: The City of Fresno General Plan MEIR states that scenic resources within the City of Fresno include parks, golf courses, areas along the San Joaquin R iver, and h istoric structures in Downtown Fresno. The proposed project involves the construction of a new park, which will include a water play area, additional trees and landscaping, exercise areas, multi -use courts and fields, picnic areas, a skate park, a decorative mural wall, and a monument art wall. As such, the installation of landscaping and hardscaping as a part of the proposed project would result in the improvement of a scenic resource. Additionally, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways located in Fresno County. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there is no impact.

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

No Impact: The proposed project site is located in a n urbanized area within the City of Fresno.

The materials, signage, fencing, landscaping, and building materials used in the construction of Milburn/Dakota Park will be selected based on their ability to improve the overall visual character of the area . The proposed project will comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. There is no impact.

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

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: The project site currently has no on- site sources of lighting, with the exception of street lighting or any outdoor lighting utilized by existing single-family residential homes around the area. The project will introduce exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination, which may contribute to ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Additional night lighting sources on the project site, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that may impact surrounding adjacent residential uses. This 3-15

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

would create new sources of light that could potentially have a signific ant impact on nighttime light levels. The amount of light shall be provided in compliance with the standards of the Department of Public Works. During the project review process, staff will ensure that lights are located in areas that will minimize light s ources to the neighboring properties and meet C ity standards. Mitigation Measures (MM) AES -1 through AES-3 from the General Plan MEIR require lighting systems to be shielded to direct light to ground surfaces and orient light away from adjacent properties. As a result, the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Aesthetics:

M
itigation Measure AES‐
1, AES‐
2, and AES‐

3. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Checklist within the MMRP. In conclusion, the project with MEIR mitigation measures will not result in any aesthetic impacts beyond those analyzed in the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.

3-16

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?    
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
   
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?    
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 forestland to
non-forest use?
   

3-17

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Environmental Setting

The City of Fresno is located within Fresno County where agriculture is a vital component of the economy and is a significant source of the County’s cultural identity. As such, preserving the productivity of agricultural lands is integral to maintaining the City’s culture and economic viability.

The proposed project is located within an urbanized area within the City of Fresno . The project site does not contain any agricultural resources, nor will the proposed project aff ect any ongoing agricultural operations.

Regulatory Setting

California Land Conservation Act of 1965: The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with priva te landowners to restrict the activities on specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space uses. The landowners benefit from the contract by receiving greatly reduced property tax assessments. The California Land Conservation Act is overseen by the California Department of Conservation; however local governments are responsible for determining specific allowed uses and enforcing the contract.

California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP): The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State.

Land is included in this program based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows:

• Prime Farmland has the ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is capable of producing sustained yields.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years prior to classification and does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three ca tegories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as agricultural, and/or support dairy.
• Grazing Land has vegetation that is suitable for grazing livestock.

City of Fresno General Plan: The City of Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that are related to agricultural resources.

G‐5 Objective: While recognizing that the County of Fresno retains the primary responsibility for agricultural land use policies and the protection and advancement of farming operation s, the City of Fresno will support efforts to preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for 3-18

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

urbanization and outside of the city's public service delivery capacity by being responsible in its land use plans, public service delivery plans, and development policies.

• G-
5-
a. Policy: Establish a cooperative research a nd planning program with the County of Fresno, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural - l
and resources.
• G-
5-
b. Policy: Plan for the location and intensity of urban development in a manner that efficiently utilizes land area located within the planned urban boundary, including the North and Southeast Growth Areas, while promoting compatibility with agricultural uses located outside of the planned urban area.
• G-
5-
c. Policy: The City of Fresno shall encourage project development proposals that result in the infilling of the existing urban area.
• G-5-d
. Policy: New urban development should be compact within the constraints of service capability to conserve land resources and forestall conversion of agricultural land by preventing urban sprawl.
• G-
5-
e. Policy: Amend the urban referral and "holding zone" provisions of the 1983 City of Fresno/City of Clovis/Fresno County Joint Resolution on Metropolitan Plann ing, and negotiate a memorandum of understanding with these adjoining jurisdictions to prevent further development of rural residential development as well as all forms of urban development not consistent with the 2025 General Plan strategies for compact contiguous development within the city general plan boundaries.
• G-
5-
f. Policy: Oppos e lot splits and development proposals in unincorporated areas within and outside the city general plan boundary when these proposals would do any of the following:
o ma
ke it difficult or infeasible to implement the general plan. o contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the metropolitan area (such as, air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).
• G-5-g.

Policy: In the San Joaquin River bottom, accommodate agricultural uses that do not stimulate unplanned growth or conversion of designated open space land to urban uses.

RC‐

9. Objective: Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.

• RC-
9-a. Policy: Regional Cooperation. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno an d Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources.
• RC-9-b. Policy: Unincorporated Land in the Planning Area. Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
o Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; o Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or o Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air qua lity, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).
3-19

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• RC-9-c. Policy: Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mit igation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

Discussion

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non
‐a
gricultural use?

No Impact: The proposed project does not involve construction on land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There is no agricultural activity within the vicinity o f the project site. The projec t would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and there is no impact.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

No Impact: The p roject site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: The project site is not zoned for forest or timberland production and there is no zone change proposed for the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non ‐ forest use?

No Impact: No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, will occur as a result of the project and there would be no impacts.

e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their lo cation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐ag ricultural use or conversion of forestland
to non‐
forest use?

3-20

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

No Impact: As discussed above, there is no agricultural activity within the vicinity of the project site.

The project site is in an urban, built-out portion of the City. The project does not include any features which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to agriculture and forest resources beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-21

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

III. AIR QUALITY

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?    
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?
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
   

Environmental Setting

Air pollution is directly related to regional topography. Topographic features can either stimulate the movement of air or restrict air movement. California is divided into regional air basins based on topographic air drainage features. The proposed project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, Coastal Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south.

The mountain ranges surrounding the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) serve to restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of polluti on. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollution accumulation over time. As shown in the Table 3-1, the SJVAB is in nonattainment f or several pollutant standards.

Pollutant Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
3-22

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Table 3-1. San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status; Source: SJVAPCD

Valley Fever: Valley Fever is an illness caused by a fungus ( Coccidioides immitis and C. posadasii) that grows in soils under certain conditions. Favorable conditions for the Valley Fever fungus include low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. In California, the counties with the highest incident of Valley Fever are Fresno, Kern and Kings counties. When soils are disturbed by wind or activities like construction and farming, Valley Fever fungal spores ca n become airborne. The spores present a potential health hazard when inhaled. Individuals in occupations such as construction, agriculture, and archaeology have a higher risk of exposure due to working in areas of disturbed soils which may have the Valley Fever fungus.

Regulatory Setting

Federal Clean Air Act – The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, require s both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air qua lity- related legislation. EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.

California Clean Air Act – California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from vehicular sources. Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary-source and most categories of area- source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water , visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1 -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM
10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.
3-23

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet 8 Hour
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.075
ppm (147
μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150
μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
35 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
35 ppm
(40
mg/m3)
--
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10
mg/m3)
--
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
μg/m3)
--
Gas Phase Annual
Chemiluminescence Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
53 ppb
(100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3)
--
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- --

0.5 ppm
(1300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for
certain
areas)9
--
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
--

0.030
ppm (for
certain
areas)9
--
Lead10,11
30 Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
-- -- High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption Calendar
Quarter --

1.5 μg/m3
(for
Same as
Primary
Standard
3-24

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
certain
areas)11
Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15
μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote
12 Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
No National Standard Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride10 24 Hour

0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

9. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Table 3-2. Ambient Air Quality Standards; Source: SJVAPCD

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects:

3-25

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Non‐Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
Nox 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Table 3-3. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants; Source: SJVAPCD

The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:

• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All projects which include construction, demoliti on, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust.
• Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. • Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project will submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements.
• Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

3-26

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and would result in air pollutant emissions that are regulated by the air district during both its construction and operational phases. The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in Fresno County into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The Air District has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plan for the basin.

Together, these plans quantify the required emission reductions to meet federal and state air quality standards and provide strategies to meet these standards. The SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule in order to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in its PM10 and Ozone (NOx) attainment plans and has since determined that implementation and compliance with ISR would reduce the cumulative PM10 and NOx impacts anticipated in the air quality plans to a less than significant level.

Construction Phase. Construction of the proposed project would involve the construction of new park amenities. The construction -related emissions from these activities were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 -4 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

CO (tpy) ROG (tpy) SOx (tpy)* Nox (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy)
Emissions
Generated from
Project
Construction

1.5954 0.1692 0.00356 1.5349 0.1806 0.0576
SJVAPCD Air
Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Table 3 -4. Projected Project Emi ssions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants related to Construction; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod Analysis (Appendix A)

Operational Phase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in some long-term emissions due to the operation of the proposed project facilities and VMT from city maintenance workers and project visitors. Emissions generated by operation of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod. The Full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-5 below, the project’s operational emissions are well below the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

3-27

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Operational Emissions
(Dry Years) 0.0725 0.00985 0.00044 0.0944 0.0260 0.00715 SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Table 3 -5. Projected Project Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significan ce for Criteria Pollutants related to Operations; Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod Analysis (Appendix A)

Because the emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact.

b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non ‐at
tainment under an applicable federal or sta te ambient air quality standard?

Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in Fresno County into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to exist ing air quality violations. As discussed above, neither construction-related emissions or operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of project im plementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the project is compliant with these thresholds and regulations, the project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. The impact is less than significant.

c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than Significant Impact : An elementary school and single-family r esidences are located directly adjacent to the project site and are the nearest sensitive receptors. The project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive rec eptors, such as heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

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

Less Than Significant Impact: The project would result in typical construction odors during project construction. However, any odors generated from project construction would be temporary and 3-28

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

common to any construction activity. The proposed project will not introduce a conflicting land use to the area and will not include any components that would typically emit odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impact is less than significant.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any air quality impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-29

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
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?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   

Discussion for this section originates from the Habitat Assessment that was prepared for this project by Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. to identify sensitive biological resources, provide project impact analysis, and suggest mitigation measures. The full document can be found in Appendix B.

The Project site contains potentially suitable habitat for the following species: blunt -nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus), Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), Costa’s Hummingbird (Calypte costae) Lawrence’s Goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei), Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus clementae).

3-30

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Environmental Setting

The proposed Project site is located in the city of Fresno in an area with urban disturbances as well as some agriculture mixed in with residential areas. John Steinbeck Elementary School lays directly on the north side of the Project boundary, separated by a fence that will have a connecting entrance to the schoolyard, according to the Project plans. The Project site is highly disturbed with tilling marks in the soil. Soil is alkaline and friable or easily crumbled, with ground squirrel burrows throughout the Project site. Vegetation is mostly Russian thistle (Kali targus), a non-native tumble weed, and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). There are no drainages or surface water and little to no grass. There is one Fremont cottonwood tree (Populus fremontii) along the eastern boundary with 2 woodpecker cavities (not large enough to be nest cavities). There are no other trees except one small tree of heaven shrub (Trichostema lanceolatum) near the southeast corner of the Project boundary. To the west there is a church parking lot and residential properties to the east and south. There is potential nesting habitat in the trees and shrubs around the Project site, but there is no nesting habitat within the project boundary.

Regulatory Setting

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is l ikely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

T
he Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703‐ 712): FMBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading in any bird species covered in one of four internationa l conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

A
lthough the USFWS and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non -game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 35 03.5): Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.

Clean Water Act: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corp s of Engineers (USACE) regu lates discharg es of dredged and fill materials into 3-31

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

“waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters). Waters of the US including navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA): prohibits the take of any state -listed threatened and endangered species. CESA defines take as “any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.” If the proposed project results in a take of a listed species, a pe rmit pursuant to Section 2080 of CESA is required from the CDFG.

C
ity of Fresno Municipal Code (Section 13‐305‐Tree Preservation). The City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 13-
305 protects all public trees in the City, including but not limited to trees t hat are affecting surface improvements or underground facilities o r which are diseased, or located where construction is being considered or will occur. No person, except authorized City personnel, shall remove, destroy, deface or injure any tree on public property by any means including but not limited to: pouring material on or immediately adjacent to any tree, attaching any sign or notice to a tree without supervision of the Director, causing or encouraging fire around any tree, or covering the ground within a 4-f oot radius around
any tree with concrete or other unnatural surface. Any removal of trees shall be conducted only after an evaluation and inspection by the Director, and written authorization.

Discussion

a) Would the project h ave 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 & Gam e or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation : The entire project area is highly disturbed from agricultural equipment and dominated with noxious weeds. Ground squirrel burrows are scattered throughout the Project site and surrounding areas. Residential properties and agricultural fields adjacent to the project site contain pockets suitable for nesting bird habitat. Preconstruction Surveys and Biological Monitoring for special status species with identified suitable habitat is recommended.

Prior to performing the habitat assessment, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Soar Environmental) conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for P lanning and Consultation (IPaC). The CNDDB and IPaC search indicated that the State-listed and/or Federally-listed sensitive species most likely to occur within or near the Project site were San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF, Vulpes macrotis mutica), blunt -nosed leopard (BNLL, Gambelia silus), giant garter snake (GGS, Thamnophis gigas), California red legged frog (CRLF, Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (CTS, Ambystoma californiense), Delta smelt (DS, hypomesus transpacificus), vernal pool fairy shrimp ( VPFS, Branchinecta lynchi), Swainson's hawk (SWHA, Buteo swainsoni), California thrasher (CATH, Toxostoma redivivum) , Costa’s hummingbird (COHU, Calypte costae), Lawrence’s goldfinch (LAGO, Carduelis lawrencei), Nuttall’s woodpecker

3-32

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

(NUWO, Picoides nutta llii), Rufous hummingbird (RUHU, Selasphorus rufus), spotted towhee (SPTO, Pipilo maculatus clementae), Hartweg's go lden sunburst, California Jewelflower(CJ, Caulanthus californicus), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (SVOG, Orcuttia inaequalis), hairy Orcut t grass (HOG, Orcuttia inaequlis), and succulent owl's-clover(SOC, Castilleja camperstris)

While none of the aforementioned listed species were observed on the project site, potentially suitable habitat features for BNLL, SWHA, SJKF, and nesting birds CATH, COHU, LAGO, NUWO, RUHU, and SPTO were observed within the project footprint. By applying the mitigation measures described below, the impact to special-status species will be less than significant for CEQA considerations.

BNLL Habitat

During the field survey, no signs of BNLL were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.

However, there are potentially suitable habitat features on site for this species, such as the small mammal burrows all over of the site. BNLL are known to utilize small mammal burrows as refugia, or to hibernate. However, the mitigation measures described below will render the potential impact to BNLL less than significant under CEQA considerations.

SJKF Habitat

During the field survey, no signs of SJKF were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas.

However, there are potentially suitable habitat features on site for this species, such as the small mammal burrows along the east and west boundaries of the site. Burrows with openings greater than 3 inches within the Project boundaries may support potential dens for this species. However, the mitigation measures described below will render the potential impact to SJKF less than significant under CEQA considerations.

SWHA Habitat

During the habitat assessment, there were no observations of SWHA or potential suitable habitat on the Project site. However, there is potential suitable habitat in the peripheral area to the Project site.

The mitigation measures described below will render potential impacts to SWHA as less than significant under CEQA considerations.

Special status species observations and potential habitat findings are summarized in Table 1 below.

3-33

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Table 3‐ 6 – Special Status Species Findings

Species Name
Species
Observed on
Project Site
Suitable
Habitat on
Project Site
San Joaquin orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequlis)
No No
Fleshy owl’s clove
(Orcuttia camperstris)
No No
Hairy orcutt grass
(Orcuttia Pilosa)
No No
vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
No No
Delta smelt
(hypomesus transpacificus)
No No
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia silus)
No Yes
giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
No No
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
No No
California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
No No
Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
No Yes
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
No Yes
California thrasher
(Toxostoma redivivum)
No Yes
Costa’s Hummingbird
(Calypte costae)
No Yes
Lawrence’s Goldfinch
(Carduelis lawrencei)
No Yes
Nuttall’s Woodpecker
(Picoides nuttallii)
No Yes
Rufous Hummingbird
(Selasphorus rufus)
No Yes
Spotted Towhee
(Pipilo maculatus clementae)
No Yes

3-34

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: BNLL, SWHA, SJKF, and nesting birds CATH, COHU, LAGO, NUWO, RUHU, and SPTO

MM BIO – 1 A qualified biologist will survey the small mammal burrows within the Project footprint prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. If the biologist observes signs indicating the presence, or recent past presence for BNLL, SJKF, or CTS, monitoring efforts should be initiated, and the feature location avoided by a buffer of 50 feet (or more) until it has been confirmed that no SJKF are present within the Project footprint.

MM BIO – 2 Prior to the commencement of ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist will evaluate the small mammal burrows on the Project site by monitoring with cameras to confirm the presence or absence of GGS, SJKF, and BNLL. If the biologist observes signs indicating the presence, or recent past presence for GGS, SJKF, or BNLL, monitoring efforts should be initiated and the feature location avoided by a buffer of 50 feet (or more) until it has been confirmed that no GGS, SJKF, or BNLL are present within the Project footprint.

MM BIO – 3 Project construction should be conducted outside of the nesting season (March 1 to September 15). If Project construction occurs during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstructi on survey of the Project site and the surrounding habitat for nesting birds to avoid any adverse impacts leading to nest failure or abandonment. The preconstruction survey will be conducted no more than 30 days before the commencement of Project construction.

Active raptor nests should be avoided by at least 150 feet, and non -raptor nests should be avoided by at least 50 feet. All nests should be monitored daily during construction until the young have fledged. All nests should be monitored during Project activities for signs of distress. If signs of distress are observed, Project activities should be adjusted to prevent further disturbance to the birds.

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other se nsitive 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?

No Impact: During the Habitat Assessment performed by Soar Environmental, no riparian habitat nor other sensitive natural communities were observed on-site. Development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the Ca lifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).There is no impact.

3-35

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

c) Would the project h ave a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wet lands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact: No water or other hydrologic features occur within the limits of construction and operation of the proposed project. There are no jurisdictional water features and no nexus to Waters of the United States. Therefore, no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands would occur due to the proposed project.

d) Interfere substantially with the movemen t 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?

Less than Significant Impact: The project does not contain streams or other waterways that could be used by migratory fish or as a wildlife corridor for other wildlife species. John Steinbeck Elementary School lays along the north boundary. To the east and south there is residential property and small agricultural fields on private property. To the west, the project is bordered by a church parking lot. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish, wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. The impact is less than significant.

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

No Impact: Section 13-305 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code requires inspection by the Director and written authorization prior to the removal of any public trees in the City. The proposed project does not anticipate the removal of any trees, however the project will comply with this ordinance if any trees are to be removed. The pr oject would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in effect within the vicinity of the project. There is no impact.

Study Limitations

This Section has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. The Section documents site conditions that were observed during field reconnaissance and do not apply to future conditions. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this Section.

3-36

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to biological resources beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-37

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?    

Environmental Setting

The Yokuts were the first residents of the Fresno area, with small tribes occupying the floodplains of the Big Dry Creek and the Little Dry Creek. Ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Fresno is located in part of the Southern Valley Yokuts territory.

European settlement did not occur until the 1760’s, as land-based expeditions originating from Spanish Mexico into Southern California started to occur. European-American settlement of this region began in 1851 with the building of Fort Miller on the San J oaquin River. In 1856, Fresno County was created and the first county seat was located in the foothill community of Millerton. The City of Fresno became the county seat in 1874 and was incorporated as a city in 1885.

A Cultural Resources Records Search w as conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center on May 19,2020. The records search stated there ha s been one previous cultural resources study conducted within a small portion of the project area. There has been four additional previous cultural resource studies conducted within the one-half mile radius. According to the records search, there are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are two recorded resources within the one- half mile radius, which are both historic era buildings. There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the Nat ional R egister of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks. The full findings of the cultural records search can be found in Appendix C.

Regulatory Setting

National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

3-38

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, experimental, or other value. In order for a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:

• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

C
ity of Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance: The City of Fresno has established a Historic Preservation Commission and a Local Register of Historic Resources (Fresno M unicipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16).

First established in 1979, the Ordinance was last updated in 1999. The Ordinance is used to provide local levels of control over the historical aesthetics of cultural resources within the City, and to ensure that the potential impact to locally significant historical resources that may be the subject of redevelopment are given reasonable consideration. The purpose of the Ordinance is to “continue to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultura l, economic and general welfare of the public; to continue to protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; to continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the city’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; to continue to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development.” (Article 16 Section 12 -1
602(a).) The
Ordinance provides legislative mechanisms to protect certain historical resources. Local registers of identified historical resources are known, including:

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

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

3. Local Historic Districts. These are defined as any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The Local Historic District must be significant as 3-39

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

well as identifiable and it must meet Local Register Criteria for listing on that Register.

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

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

City of Fresno General Plan: The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the City of Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that are potentially applicable to the proposed project:

H
CR‐1
. OBJECTIVE: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resources.

• HC
R-
2-
c . Policy. Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy. • HC
R-
2-
d. Policy. Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educ ate developers and the community-a
t-l
arge about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape. • H
CR-2-h
. Policy. Minimum Maintenance Standards. Continue to support enforcement of the minimum maintenance provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
• HC
R-
2-
k. Policy. City
-O
wned Resources. Maintain all City-
owned historic and cultural resources in
a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate.

H
CR
‐

3. OBJECTIVE: Promote a “New City Beautiful” ethos by linking historic preservation, public art, and planning principles for Complete Neighborhoods with green building and technology.

• HC
R-
3-
a. Policy. Adaptive Reuse. Promote the adaptive reuse and integration of older buildings into new projects as part of the City’s commitment to nurturing a sustainable Fresno. • HC
R-
3-
b. Policy. Public Art. Collaborate with the arts community to promote the integration of public art into historic buildings and established neighborhoods. Link arts activities (such as Art Hop) with preservation activities.
3-40

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• HCR- 3- c. Policy. Context Sensitive Design. Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context
-se
nsitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.

Discussion

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

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation : A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (AIC), to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initial study, and/or whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.

The records search stated there ha s been one previous cultural resources study conducted within a small portion of the project area. There have been four additional previous cultural resource studies conducted within the one- half mile radius . According to the records search, there are no record ed resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are two recorded resources within the one -half mile radius, which are both historic era buildings. The existing historic era buildings are the only known cultural resource within the project site. The buildings will not be demolished, relocated, or otherwise impacted by implementation of the proposed project.

Although no other cultural resources were identified, the pre sence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 and CUL-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known archaeological resources located within the project are a. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 will ensure that potential impact to unknown archeological resources will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interr ed outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during project construction, there is a potential for 3-41

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

a significant impact. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources

Mit
igation Measure CUL‐
1: If previously unknown resources are enco untered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

I
f the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excav ations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City
-a
pproved institution or person who is capable of providing long -t
erm
preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mit
igation Measure CUL‐
2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then s erve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeologica l standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any cultural resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-42

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

VI. ENERGY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    

Environmental Setting

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity services within the City of Fresno. PG&E serves approximately 16 million people throughout a 70,000 square mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E supplies electricity t o its customers through a variety of renewable and nonrenewable sources. Table 3-6 below shows the proportion of each energy resource sold to California consumers by PG&E in 2017 as compared to the statewide average.

Fuel Type PG&E Power
Mix
California
Power Mix
Coal 0% 3%
Large Hydroelectric 13% 11%
Natural Gas 15% 35%
Nuclear 34% 9%
Other (Oil/Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0% <1%
Unspecified Sources of Power1 0% 11%
Eligible
Renewables
Biomass 4% 2%
Geothermal 4% 5%
Small Hydro 3% 2%
Solar 18% 11%
Wind 10% 11%
Total Eligible
Renewable 39% 31%

1. "Unspecified sources of power" means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.

Table 3-7. 2018 PG&E and State average power resources; Source: California Energy Commission

3-43

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

PG&E also provides natural gas services to the project area, however natural gas will not be required to operate the proposed project.

Regulatory Setting

California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a broad s et of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings.

These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting.

Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Selma Building Department.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen): CalGreen is a mandatory green building code that sets minimum environmental standards for new buildings. It includes standards for volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials, water conservation, and construction waste recycling

City of Fresno General Plan: The Resource Conservation Element of the City o f Fresno General Plan contains the following policies related to energy conservation:

• G‐9‐a. Policy. The city shall continue its leadership role in energy conservation through its own facilities and operations.
o The city shall continue its existing beneficial energy conservation programs. o All new construction and major renovations in municipal buildings shall conform to applicable Title 24 energy standards.
• G‐9‐c. Policy. Through its regulation of land use planning and development, the city will provid e for energy conservation.
o C
urrent energy-
efficient planning and construction guidelines will be maintained. o E
nvironmental review of development projects (including changes in land use designations) will include a description of energy consumption and conservation features that are, or feasibly could be, incorporated into these projects. o Siting, building orientation, structural design, and landscaping of a proposed land use or development project will be considered in relation to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency will be a factor that is considered in the decision process for projects. o In regard to the Solar Rights and Solar Shade Acts of 1978, the city shall observe provisions in state law regarding solar access and shall continue to study whether further legislation is necessary.
o At
the interface of commercial or industrial and residential land uses, or the interface of multi- f
amily with single-
family residential land uses, height restrictions and/or setbacks should be used at the common boundar y to ensure solar access to structures on both sides of the boundary.
o U
pdated information on California Title 24 and other energy conservation guidelines and measures will be made available to staff and the area construction industry

3-44

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes construction of a cit y park on undeveloped land. Since the project site is vacant, the construction and operation of the park would introduce energy usage on a site currently demanding little to no energy. The proposed project would consume energy in the short - and long-term through project construction and operation.

Construction
During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. Energy would be consumed through two general forms during project construction: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, concrete, and pipes.

This increase in energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Vehicle fuel consumption during project construction was estim ated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2020 gasoline /diesel MPG factors provided by the EMFAC2014. To simplify the estimation process, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source. Table 3-7, below, provides gasoline and diesel fuel used by on-road sources during each phase of project construction.

Construction Phase # of
Days
Daily
Worker
Trips1
Daily
Vendor
Trips1
Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gallons)2
Diesel Fuel
Use
(gallons)2
Site Preparation 5 18 0 38.4 0
Grading 8 15 0 51.2 0
Building Construction 230 82 32 8050.9 8974.51
Paving 18 20 0 153.7 0
Architectural Coating 18 16 0 122.9 0
Total 279 N/A N/A 8417.7 20641.38

1. Data provided by CalEEMod (Appendix A)

2. See Appendix D
Table 3-8. On-Road Mobile Fuel Use Generated by Construction Activities. Source: CalEEMod (v. 2016.3.1); EMFAC2014

Because construction-related energy use would be temporary, and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the project is not anticipated to increase energy consumption beyond exis ting conditions, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources . The impact is less than significant.

3-45

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Operation
Implementation of the proposed proj ect would increase the project -related annual gasoline demand due to the trips generated by the project. Consumption of energy as a result of project implementation would be similar to other park developments in the City. Ther efore, the impacts are less than significant.

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

No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project will comply with all state and local policies related to energy efficiency and there is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to energy resources beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-46

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:

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

42.    
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?    
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct and indirect risks to life
or property?
   
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?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
   

Environmental Setting

The City of Fresno Planning Area covers roughly 166 square miles in the central portion of Fresno County, California. The City is located within the San Joaquin Valley structural basin, bounded to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and to the west by the Coastal Ranges. The natural topography within the Planning Area follows drainage channels that follow northeast towards the southwest. However, due to land developed for agricultural use over the years, there are also many sub-channels that transport water in a northwest-southeast course. No active faults are mapped within the City of Fresno.

3-47

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

The existing topography is relatively flat, with no significant land forms, such as ve rnal pools. The project site is mapped containing soils classified as San Joaquin Sandy Loam, shallow, 0-3 percent slopes (Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture).

Development of the proposed project requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Standards.

Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity

• Seismicity: Although there are a number of potentially active faults within and near Fres no County, and active seismic areas exist in the western areas of the County, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is considered to be at relatively low risk for seismic activity. The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the project site as having a 20- 30% probability of shaking 2% in 50 years. Ground shaking can result in other geological impacts, including liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse

• Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading. No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been preformed, however the Fresno County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types are unsuitable for liquefaction.

• Landslides: Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides are caused by both natural and human-induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. While w estern portions of the County are considered to be high landslide hazard areas, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is considered a moderate landslide hazard area. Both City and County General Plans have historically recognized that slopes exceeding 26 percent are essentially “undevelopable” and “ not readily available” due to inherent instability, engineering difficulties, and costs. The Fresno County Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states that occurrence of landslide events within populated areas of Fresno County is unlikely. Majority of the City, including the proposed project site, is considered to be at low risk of landslides and mudslides because of its flat topography. The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan states that minor landslides will likely continue to impact the area when heavy precipitation occurs.

• Subsidence: Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land as a result of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley as a result of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. Although western portions of the County show signs of deep and shallow subsidence, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is not considered to be at risk of subsidence related hazards.

3-48

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Soils Involved in Project: The proposed project involves construction on one soil type. The properties of this soil type are described briefly below:

• San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0 to 3 percent slopes: The entire project is located on San Joaquin sandy loam soils. The San Joaquin series is a member of the fine, mixed, active, thermic Abruptic Durixeralfs taxonomic class. These soils are moderately deep to a duripan, and exhibit well to moderately well drainage, medium to very high runoff, and very slow permeability.

3-49

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-3
3-50
Mi
lburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021 Regulatory Setting
Ca
lifornia Building Code: The California Building Code contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.

Ci
ty of Fresno Municipal Code, Section 11 ‐101 (California Building Code): The City of Fresno Municipal Code has incorporated and adopted the CBC, 201 9 Edition, as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission, which incorporates the adoption of the 20 18 edition of the of the Interna tional Building Code, as amended with necessary California amendments and the 20 18 International Building Code of the International Code Council, with the exception of Appendix B. Together with the City's amendments to the CBC provided in Section 11
- 10
2, these shall be referred to as the Fresno Building
Code. One copy of the CBC is on file and available for use by the public in the Development and Resource Management Department, Building and Safety Services Division.

Ci
ty of Fresno General Plan: The Fresn o General Plan includes the following policies regarding soils and geology:
• Policy NS-2-a Seismic Protection: Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code. • Policy NS-2-b Soil Analysis Requirement: Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa. • Policy PU-5-a Mandatory Septic Conversion: Continue to evaluate and pursue where determined appropriate the mandatory abatement of existing private wastewater disposal (se ptic) systems and mandatory connection to the public sewage collection and disposal system. • Policy PU-5-b Non-Regional Treatment: Discourage, and when determine appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other non-regional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.
3-51

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

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

i. R
upture 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 Mi nes and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact: Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project site could be affected by ground shaking from nearby faults. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project does not propose any components which could cause substantial adverse effects in the event of an earthquake.

Additionally, the project has no potential to indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault. Therefore, there is no impact related to the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

No Impact: According to the Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, the project site is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. There is no impact.

iii. S
eismic‐
related ground failure, including liquefaction?

No Impact: No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been performed; however the Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types are unsuitable for liquefaction. The area’s low potential for seismic activity would further reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurrence. Because the project site is within an area of low seismic activity, and the soils associated with the project area not suitable for liquefaction, there are no impacts.

iv. Landslides?

No Impact: The City of Fresno is considered at low risk of small landslides. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. As a result, there is very low potential for landslides.

There would be no impact.

3-52

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact : Minimal grading will be needed to accommodate the proposed park.

Although these construction activities will result in a temporary loss of topsoil , any soil erosion impacts would be temporary and subject to best management practices required by SWPPP. These best management practices are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction , and required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant.

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

No Impact: The soils associated with the project site are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Because the project area is considered to be stable, and this project would not result in a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would inc rease the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, there is no impact.

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

No Impact: The proposed project site is not in an area identified by the Fresno County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan as having expansive soils. Because the soils associated with the project do not exhibit shrink swell behavior, implementation of the project will pose no risk to life or property caused by expansive soils and there is no impact.

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

No Impact: The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed restroom facilities will tie into the existing City sewer services. Therefore, there would be no impact.

f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: There are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area. However, there is always the possibility that paleontological resources may exist below the ground surface. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

3-53

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any geologic impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-54

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
   
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
   

Environmental Setting

Natural processes and human activities emit greenhouse gases. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat -trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 34ºC cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activiti es, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

The effect of greenhouse gasses on earth’s temp erature is equivalent to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydro chlorofluorocarbons, and hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, sulfur and hexafluoride. Some gases are more effective than others. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been calculated for each greenhouse gas to reflect how long it remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how strongly it absorbs energy. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy, per pound, than gases wit h a lower GWP, and thus contribute more to global warming. For example, one pound of methane is equivalent to twenty-one pounds of carbon dioxide.

GHGs as defined by AB 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3-8. Each gas's effect on climate change depends on three main factors. The first being the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, followed by how lo ng they stay in the atmosphere and finally how strongly they impact global temperatures.

Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Methane (CH4)
Is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas.

12 years

21 Emitted during the production and
transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from
livestock and other agricultural
practices and by the decay of organic
waste in municipal solid waste
landfills.
3-55

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Greenhouse
Gas
Description and Physical
Properties Lifetime GWP Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
An odorless, colorless, natural
greenhouse gas.

30-95
years

1 Enters the atmosphere through
burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas
and oil), solid waste, trees and wood
products, and also as a result of
certain chemical reactions (e.g.,
manufacture of cement). Carbon
dioxide is removed from the
atmosphere (or "sequestered") when
it is absorbed by plants as part of the
biological carbon cycle.

Chloro-
fluorocarbons
Gases formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms. They are
non-toxic nonflammable, insoluble
and chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at the
earth’s surface).
55-140
years

3,800
to
8,100

Were synthesized in 1928 for use as
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and
cleaning solvents. They destroy
stratospheric ozone.

Hydro-
fluorocarbons
A man-made greenhouse gas. It
was developed to replace ozone-
depleting gases found in a variety
of appliances. Composed of a
group of greenhouse gases
containing carbon, chlorine an at
least one hydrogen atom.
14 years

140 to
11,700

Powerful greenhouse gases that are
emitted from a variety of industrial
processes. Fluorinated gases are
sometimes used as substitutes for
stratospheric ozone-depleting
substances. These gases are typically
emitted in smaller quantities, but
because they are potent greenhouse
gases.

Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Commonly known as laughing gas,
is a chemical compound with the
formula N2O. It is an oxide of
nitrogen. At room temperature, it
is a colorless, non-flammable gas,
with a slightly sweet odor and
taste. It is used in surgery and
dentistry for its anesthetic and
analgesic effects.
120
years

310

Emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as during
combustion of fossil fuels and solid
waste.

Pre-
fluorocarbons
Has a stable molecular structure
and only breaks down by
ultraviolet rays about 60
kilometers above Earth’s surface.
50,000
years

6,500
to
9,200

Two main sources of pre-
fluorocarbons are primary aluminum
production and semiconductor
manufacturing.

Sulfur
hexafluoride
An inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic nonflammable gas.

3,200
years

23,900

This gas is manmade and used for
insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing and as
a tracer gas.

Table 3-9. Greenhouse Gasses; Source: EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 3-56

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

In regards to the quantity of these gases are in the atmosphere, we first must establish the amount of particular gas in the air, known as concentration, or abundance, which are measured in parts per million, parts per billion and even parts per trillion. To put these measurements in more relatable terms, one part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of water, roughly a full tank of gas in a compact car. Therefore, it can be assumed larger emission of greenhouse gases lead to a higher concentration in the atmosphere.

Each of the designated gases described above can reside in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years. All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world regardless of the source of the emission.

Regulatory Setting

AB 32: AB 32 set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of 2011.

S
B 1078, SB 107 and Executive Order S ‐
14 ‐
08: SB 1078, SB 107, and Executive Order S -14-08 require California to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 then changes the 2017 deadline to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 required that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.

C
ity of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan : The City of Fresno has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan) within their General Plan Update in efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

The GHG Plan focuses on emissions generated by activities within the City of Fresno. The GHG Plan is designed to ensure that the development accommodated by the buildout of the General Plan supports the goals of AB 32. The Fresno Green Sustainability Strategy includes a commitment to meet the 2020 AB 32 goal and Executive Order S-03-05. While the State has yet to adopt a target or strategies for reaching targets past 2020, broad targets have been discussed for upcoming years.

3-57
Mi
lburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021 Discussion
a) Wo
uld the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD states that individual and cumulative GHG emissions are considered less than significant if a project complies with an approved GHG emission red uction plan or GHG mitigation program with within the geographic area in which the project is located . The City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Therefore, the proposed projec t’s GHG emissions w ould not be considered a significant impact if the proposed project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy. Table 3-9, below, evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable objectives and policies included in the GHG reduction plan.

GHG Reduction Plan Strategy Project Consistency with Strategy Policy LU‐2‐a Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and re-developable land within the City limits where urban serv ices are available by considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.

Consistent. The proposed project
involves the development of a city
park on vacant land within City limits
where urban services are available.

Policy R C‐2‐b Provide Infrastructure for Mixed Use and Infill.

Promote investment in the public infrastructure needed to allow mixed-use and denser infill development to occur in targeted locations, such as expanded water and wastewater conveyance systems, complete streetscapes, parks and open space amenities, and trails. Discourage investment in infrastructure that would not meet these criteria
Consistent. The proposed project will
provide additional park amenities
which promotes denser infill
development within the vicinity of
the project.

Policy UF‐12‐e Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoption and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priorit y transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.

Consistent. The proposed project
provides enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle access by
incorporating a pedestrian trail
and landscaped sidewalks that
connect to the surrounding
residential neighborhood and
adjacent elementary school.

Policy UF‐14‐a Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian - sc
aled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.

Consistent. The proposed project
incorporates street trees,
landscaping, an art wall, and a
rubberized pedestrian path to create
a pedestrian -scaled environment
within the vicinity of the project site.

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.

Consistent. The proposed project will
comply with U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Best Ma nagement
Practices for water conservation.
3-58
Milbu
rn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021 Policy RC‐7‐e Retrofit City Facilities, and Consider Incentives Programs for to Encourage Retrofitting of Other Existing Public and Private Residential and Non‐Residential Facilities and Sites.

Reduce water use in municipal buildings and City operations b y developing a schedule and budget for the retrofit of existing municipal buildings with water conservation features, such as auto shut-off faucets
and water saving irrigation systems. Prepare a
comprehensive incentive program for other existing public and private residential and non
-residen
tial b uildings and irrigation
systems.

Consistent. The proposed project will
incorporate an automatic irrigation
system, backflow preventer, and
a metering system that will increase
water use efficiency.

Policy POSS‐1‐g Regional Urban Forest. Maintain and implement incrementally, through new development projects, additions to Fresno’s regional urban forest to delineate corridors and the boundaries of urban areas, and to provide tree canopy for bike lanes, sidewalks, parking lots, and trails.

Consistent. The project proposes to
plant 16 trees along the frontage of
Dakota Avenue, and seven trees
along the frontage of Milburn
Avenue. Additional trees will
also be planted throughout the
park's open space and parking
lot. The addition of trees
contribute to the City’s urban
forest.

Table 3-10. Project Consistency with GHG Reduction Plan Strategies.

Becau
se the project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas R eduction Strategy, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant greenhouse gas emission impacts. The impact is less than significant.
b) Would
the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact: As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and the project will implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any greenhouse gas impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan. 3-59

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   

Environmental Setting

The proposed project site is locate d directly south of the nearest school ( John Steinbeck Elementary School) and approximately 3.6 miles south of the nearest public-use airport (Sierra Sky Park).

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes with in the project area. This research confirmed that the project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Regulatory Setting
3-60

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] §9601 et seq.). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Act) authorizes the President to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets and enforces Occupational Safety and Health Standards to assure safe working conditions.

OSHA provides training, outreach, education, and compliance assistance to promote safe workplaces. The proposed Project would be subject to OSHA requirements during construction, operation, and maintenance.

Toxic Substances Co ntrol Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). The Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted by Congress in 1976 and authorizes the EPA to regulate any chemical substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.

Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26. The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which contains requirements for the following aspects of hazardous waste management:

• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains regulations for the identification and classification of hazardous wastes. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.

California Emergency Services Act. The California Emergency Services Act created a multi -agency emergency response plan for the state of California. The Act coordinates various agencies, including CalEPA, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.

Fresno County of Department of Public Health: A Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is a local agency that has been certified by Cal/EPA to implement the local Unified Program. The CUPA can be a county, city, or joint powers authority. The Fresno County Department of Public Health is the certified CUPA for the City of Fresno and vicinity.

City of Fresno General Plan: The Fresno General Plan includes the following policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials and have been relevant to this analysis:

3-61

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• Policy NS-4-a Processing and Storage: Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City. • Policy NS-4-b Coordination: Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal-EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining haz ardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response actions plans. • Policy NS-4-e Compliance with County Program: Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County's Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.
• Policy NS-4-f Hazardous Materials Facilities: Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations. • Policy NS-6-f Emergency Vehicle Access: Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new develo pment, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

F
resno Municipal Code Section 15 ‐
2514 (Fire and Explosive Hazards): Pursuant to Section 15 -2514 all activities involving the processing, use, or storage of flammable and explosive materials shall be equipped with adequate safety devices in accordance with the Fire Code and shall be approved by the Fresno Fire Department. In addition, the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials shall comply with the provisions of applicable federal and state laws.

Discussion

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

Less than Significant Impact: P roject construction activities may involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. During construction, the contractor will use fuel trucks to refuel onsite equipment, and may use paints and solvents to a limited degree. The storage, transp ort, and use of these materials will comply with Local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements. There is the potential for small leaks due to refueling of construction equipment, however standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP will reduce the potential for the release of construction related fuels and other hazardous materials by controlling runoff from the site, and requiring proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. The impact is less than significant.

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

No Impact: The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the public as the proposed project would not routinely transport, use, dispose, or discharge hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3-62

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
‐
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact: The project site is located directly south of an existing school (John Steinbeck Elementary), however there is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the emission, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would affect areas within ¼ miles of existing or proposed school sites. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

There would be no impact.

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

No Impact: The proposed project is located a pproximately 3.6 miles south of the nearest public airport (Sierra Sky Park) and is not located in an airport land use plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There is no impact.

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact: The City’s design and environmental review procedures shall ensure compl iance with emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response a nd evacuation needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.

g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban uses and is not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the 2017 Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan finds that fire hazards within the City of Fresno, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any hazard impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-63

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?    
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
   
(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
   
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
   

Environmental Setting

Surface Water: The San Joaquin River is the City of Fresno’s primary surface water feature. It is 366 miles long and is located approximately four miles northwest of the proposed project site. The San Joaquin River travels through the San Joaquin Valley from the San Francisco Bay to the Sierra Nevada Mountain. The river’s surface water has a variety of uses, such as municipal and domestic water supply, wildlife habitat, migration and spawning grounds, as well as for recreational, agricultural, and industrial uses.

Groundwater: The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is comprised of six subbasins. The City of Fresno is located within the Kings River Subbasin, which spans across 1,530 square miles. Subsurface recharge occurs through movement of groundwater from external sources, such as the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. Subsurface water tends to flow from areas with a higher groundwater table into areas with lower groundwater tables because the groundwater table surrounding the City is higher than inside Fresno itself. 3-64

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Although groundwater levels have declined an average of 1.5 feet since 1990, the City of Fresno estimates that by 2025, groundwater operations would be balanced, and subsurface courses would not be directed into the City.

Stormwater Drainage : The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) plans, implements, operates, and maintains storm drainage facilities within the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area. Storm water facilities consist of pipelines, storm drain inlet s, retention basins, stormwater pump stations, and urban detention (water quality) basins. The project site will be within the FMFCD service area, and the proposed project will eventually connect to the City’s municipal drainage system.

Recycled Water: The City of Fresno has the capacity to produce up to five million gallons per day of tertiary treated recycled water. This water is used for the irrigation of agriculture, parks, and cemeteries.

Regulatory Setting

Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Disc harge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.

National Flood Insurance Act: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.

C
alifornia Water Quality Porter‐
Cologne Act: California’s primary statute leading water quality and water pollution concerns with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the nine Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) power to protect water quality and further develop the Clean Water Act within California. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB.

C
entral Valley RWQCB: The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley TWQCB requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollutio n Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.

2012 Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan: The proposed project site is within the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (IRWMP) area. The plan identifies the following goals and objectives to guide regional water management.

Regional Goals:

3-65

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

1. Halt, and ultimately reverse, the current overdraft and provide for sustainable management of surface and groundwater

2. Increase the water supply reliability, enhance operational flexibility, and reduce system constraints

3. Improve and protect water quality

4. Provide additional flood protection

5. Protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems and wildlife habitat.

Regional Objectives:

1. Increase amount of groundwater in storage with intent to eliminate the groundwater overdraft in 20 years.

2. Identify opportunities and Projects.

3. Identify DAC priority needs and promote/support solutions to DAC water issues.

4. Increase average annual supply and reduce demand.

5. Increase dry year supply.

6. Increase regional conveyance capacity.

7. Compile baseline water quality data for ground & surface water.

8. Encourage Best Management Practices, policies & education that protect water quality.

9. Identify sources of water quality problems & promote/support solutions to improve water quality.

10. Increase surface storage.

11. Sustain the Kings River Fisheries Management Program.

12. Pursue opportunities to incorporate habitat benefits into projects.

13. Increase public awareness of IRWM Efforts.

14. Involve local water districts and land use agencies in generating and confirming the current and future water needs to ensure compatibility and consistency with land use and water supply plans.

15. Comply with SBx7-7.

City of Fresno General Plan: The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following flood control and water use policies that are potentially applicable to the proposed project:

• NS-3-c. Policy. Dual Use Facilities. Support multiple uses of flood control and drainage facilities as follows:
o Use, wherever practical, FMFCD facilities for groundwater management and recharge o Promote recreational development of ponding basin facilities located within or near residential areas, compatible with the stormwater and groundwater recharge functions. • NS-3-d. Policy. Landscaped Buffer. City will support the development of FMFCD ponding basins including the landscaping and irrigation for the top one third of the side sloped areas consisten t with the FMFCD Basin Design Criteria.

NS-3-h. Policy. Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the S torm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities.

Place all structures and/or flood -proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property.
3-66

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• PU- 8- g. Policy. Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
• RC-
7-c. Policy. Best Practices for Conservation . Require all City Facilities and all new priv ate development to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.
3-67

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-4
3-68

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project v iolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Less than Significant Impact: This project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade surface or ground water quality. The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction would include excavation, grading, and other earthwork that may occur across most of the 4.5-acre site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may result in runoff carrying pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris.

In addition, soil erosion may result. Implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Pr evention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site, and identifies best management practices (BMP) related to stormwater runoff. There may be chemicals or surfactants used during project maintenance or operations, so discharge could impact water quality standards. The proposed project will tie into the existing City sewer and City stormwater systems. The proposed project would not impact these systems beyond what was analyzed by the City’s MEIR. The impact is less than significant.

b) Would the project s ubstantially 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 project is not anticipated to substantially increase water use beyond existing conditions and will not introduce a significant amount of new impervious surfaces to the site.

The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The impact is less than significant.

c) Would the project s ubstantially alter the exi sting 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:

Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ o
r off‐sit
e?

Less than Significant Impact:

Construction
Although there are no streams or rivers that run through or near the project site, excavated soil would be exposed and disturbed, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during construction activities. The refore, A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented during project construction to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those related to erosion and siltation . SWPPPs include mandated erosion control 3-69

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Operation
The project site is currently undeveloped vacant land and consists of primarily pervi ous surfaces.

The development of a public park will increase impervious sur face area on the project si te to approximately 1.5 acres, which results in an increase in stormwater runoff. The impervious surface area of the project, which consists of walkways, parking, and multi-use courts, will not be prone to erosion or siltation. Erosion and siltation will also be minimal where landscaping is proposed. As such, the impacts are less than significant.

i
i. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
‐
or offsite?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project involves the construction of a city park on vacant land. The project will be subject to drainage fees in accordance with conditions issue d by the Flood Control District. The proposed project will introduce pavement and impervious surfaces that may potentially lead to polluted runoff during construction and operational activities. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implem ented to reduce any impacts related to stormwater runoff, including flooding, to less than significant. The project will have a less than significant impact.

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?

Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that could create or contribute to excessive runoff. The proposed project will tie into the City’s existing stormwater sys tem and would not have any impacts to this system beyond those analyzed by the City’s MEIR . During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Implementation of SWPPP BMPs will further reduce the potential for stormwater related impacts to occur. The impact is less than significant.

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact: The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that could impede or redirect any flood flows. The proposed project site is not located within or near a FEMA flood hazard zone. There is no impact.

d) Would the project, i n flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?

No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is located in a relatively flat area 3-70

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Sinc e the project is located in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. As such, there is no impact.

e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quali ty control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

No Impact: The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan and the Kings Basin IRWMP. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-71

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?     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?
   

Environmental Setting

The proposed project site is located within the City of Fresno, approximately 7 miles northwest of the Downtown Core. The project site is designated as Park and Recreation by the City of Fresno Zoning Code and as Open Space - Neighborhood Park by the City of Fresno General Plan. No zone changes or general plan amendments are proposed for the site.

The project site is currently vacant undeveloped land. The site is bounded by an elementary school to the north, and residential homes to the east, west, and south.

Regulatory Setting

City of Fresno General Plan. The proposed project site is designated as Open Space - Neighborhood Park by the City of Fresno General Plan.

O
pen Space ‐
Neighborhood Park: The Open Space designations (Parks and Recreational Facilities; Other Public Open Space) apply to open space ar eas that are not parks or trails, such as riparian corridors, the clear zone around Fresno -Yosemite International Airport, and the San Joaquin River bottom, which is primarily designated as open space even though it includes a limited number of existing homes.

C
ity of Fresno Zoning Ordinance: The proposed project site is designated as Park and Recreation by the City of Fresno Zoning Ordinance. This zoning designation applies to Parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, wildlife preserves, and related open spaces, all of which are noncommercial. This classification also includes noncommercial playing fields, courts, gymnasiums, swimming pools, picnic facilities, tennis courts, golf courses, and botanical gardens, as well as relat ed food concessions or community centers within the facilities.
3-72

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-5
3-73

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Figure 3-6
3-74

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact: The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed project site is designated for recreational use under both the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code and would operate as a public park following project implementation. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: The project site is located on land designated for recreational use. The proposed project does not conflict with this land use or any other policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any land use impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-75

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
   
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 lands use plan?
   

Environmental Setting

The San Joaquin Valley has been a leading producer of minerals because of the abundance and wide variety of mineral resources that are present in the Central Valley. Extracted resources include aggregate products (sand and gravel), fossil fuels (oil and coal), metals (gold, copper, mercury, and tungsten), and other minerals used in construction or industrial applications (high -grade clay, asbestos, diatomite, gypsum, granite, etc.).

Most of these mines are now closed – leaving only 23 active mining claims within the County of Fresno.

There are no mineral resource zones in the City of Fresno and there is no mineral extraction occurring on or adjacent to the proposed project site.

Regulatory Setting

California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act : The California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was adopted in 1975 to regulate surface mining to prevent adverse environmental impacts and to preserve the state’s mineral resources. The Ac t is enforced by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation.

City of Fresno General Plan: The Resource Conservation and Resilience Element of the City’s General Plan contain the following objectives and policies related to mineral resources.

RC‐
10 Conserve aggregate mineral resources within the Planning Area, as identified by the Division of Mines and Geology, and allow for responsible extraction to meet Fresno’s needs.

• P
olicy. RC-10-a. Meet Future Needs. Adopt land use and resource protection regulations that support mining of the high-quality, close-to-market aggregate resources to meet the needs of the Fresno Production Consumption Region.
• Policy. RC-10-b. Zoning in San Joaquin Riverbottom. Maintain zoning consistent with on -going mineral extraction in the San Joaquin Riverbottom that also allows multiple open space uses in conformance with State law and the City’s Surface Mining Ordinance. 3-76

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

• Policy. RC-10-c. Processing-Mining Link. Accommodate only those mineral processing activities in the San Joaquin Riverbottom that are associated and colocated with mining operations when such industrial activities will sunset with the mining operation and do not stimulate unplanned growth or conversion of multi-use open space to urban uses.
• Policy. RC-10-d. Manage MRZ-2 Areas. Prohibit land uses and development projects that preclude mineral extraction in potential high -quality mineral resource areas designated MRZ -2 by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. • Policy. RC-10-e. Existing Permits. Honor surface mining permits approved by the County of Fresno upon annexation, provided that the mining operation is in compliance with the terms of its current permit(s) and State law. Require new permit applications in the event of nonc ompliance, permit expiration, or permit revocation, and ensure compliance with law or regulations. • Policy. RC-10-f. Cooperate on Uniform Criteria. Work with the County of Fresno, the County of Madera, and the City of Clovis to develop uniform criteria applicable to existing, new, and altered mineral extraction sites in the San Joaquin Riverbottom.

Discussion

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

No Impact: The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.

b
) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally ‐
important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other lands use plan?

No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the proposed project would not result in the los s of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to mineral resources beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-77

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XIII. NOISE

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant 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?
   
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?    
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 public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
   

Environmental Setting

Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Ambient noise is the “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed project site are primarily due to agricultural activities and traffic.

Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.

The majority of the land within ½ mile radius is under residential u se, however commercial, office, and public facilities are also located within the Vicinity of the proposed project. The church, assisted living facility, and residential development are the nearest sensitive receptors and are located directly adjacent to the project site.

Regulatory Setting

City of Fresno General Plan: The City of Fresno General Plan addresses noise and vibration standard within the Noise and Safety Element. The following noise related policies are applicable to the proposed project:

• Policy NS-1-a. Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment . Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise -sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon 3-78

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

residential and noise sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level f or industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties. • Policy NS-1-b. Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determi ned by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 of the City’s General Plan. • Policy NS-1-c. Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and t he required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 of the City’s General Plan as conditions of permit approval.

City of Fresno Noise Ordinance. The City of Fresno Noise Ordinance establishes ambient noise levels, monitoring procedures, and thresholds for noise genera ting activities within the City of Fresno. Section 10-109 states that noise regulations established by the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall not apply to construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Discussion

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant 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?

Less than Significant Impact : Project construction is anticipated to last approximately fourteen months and will result in a temporary increase in noise levels within the immediate vicinity. However, Section 10-109 of the Fresno Municipal Code states that noise regulations established by the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall not apply to construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would be consistent with City of Fresno noise regulations as long as construction activities only take place on Monday-Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Because the proposed project will not involve construction outside of these hours, impacts related to noise generated during project construction are considered less than significant.

The proposed project would include elements such as a multi-use field, playgrounds for children, dog park, a fitness area, picnic structures, a walking loop, and benches and table s. The dominant noise 3-79

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

source within this area would be existing traffic. Noise generating activities associated with the park are not anticipated to be audible above existing traffic noise within the project vicinity. Therefore, it is not anticipated that project operations will generate substantial increase in noise beyond current conditions. Because construction of the proposed project would not generate excessive noise levels outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and the project would not genera te long-term noise levels beyond those generated under current conditions, the impact is less than significant.

b) Would the project result in g eneration of excessive ground ‐ borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than Significant Impact: Although project operations would not include uses or activities that typically generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, project construction could introduce temporary ground-borne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area. Sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are provided in Table 3-10.

Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration
Level (LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)

0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range

0.170 typical
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 in soil

0.017 in rock
66 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Table 3-11. Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration. The City of Fresno MEIR states that vibration sources of less than 0.1 inch/second would not have the potential to damage fragile structures. Because vibrations generated by project construction would not exceed 0.1 inch/second, the impact is less than significant.

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 public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

3-80

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or within two miles of a public airport. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any noise impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-81

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by new homes and businesses) or directly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
   

Environmental Setting

The United States Census Bureau estimated the population in the City of Fresno to be 530,093 as of July 2018. This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Fresno to be 494,665. Factors that influence population growth include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of existing infrastructure.

Regulatory Setting

City of Fresno population size is controlled by the development code and Housing Element of the General Plan. These documents regulate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed on various land uses and establish minimum and maximum lot sizes, which has a direct impact on the City’s population size.

Discussion

a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact: The proposed project will not have an effect on population growth within the City of Fresno. The project involves the construction of a city park and would not result in any new long- term employment opportunities. No residences are proposed or would becom e needed as a result of the proposed project. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: There project would not require the removal of any existing residential structures. The project would not displace any existing housing and there would be no impact.

3-82

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any population and housing impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-83

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project 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 serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    

Environmental Setting

Fire: The project site is served by the Fresno Fire Protection Department which operates 20 fire stations within the City of Fresno. The Fresno Fire Protection Department will continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation.

Police: Law enforcement services are provided to the project site via the City of Fresno Police Department.

The Fresno Police Department will continue to provide police protection services to the proposed project site following project implementation.

Schools: The proposed project site is located within the Central Unified School District. The nearest school within that district is John Steinbeck Elementary School, which is adjacent to the northern side of the project site.

Discussion

a) Would the project 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 environ mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a. Fire protection?

3-84

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

No Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will not result in increased demand for fire protection services. There is no impact.

b. Police protection?

No Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will not result in increased demand for police protection services. There is no impact.

c. Schools?

No Impact: The proposed project does not include any residential developments and would not result in any additional residents to the City of Fresno. The project will not increase the numbe r of students in the school district. Therefore, there is no impact.

d. Parks?

No Impact: The proposed project involves the construction of a new public park and would not create demand for additional parkland. There is no impact.

e. Other public facilities?

No Impact: The proposed project will not result in addition residents or create additional jobs.

The project will have no impact on other public facilities.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to public services beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-85

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
   
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?
   

Environmental Setting

There are 79 existing parks systems that are owned and operated by the City of Fresno. The City of Fresno provides different types of parks and open space facilities, or park types, to meet park and open space recreation needs of the community. Park types include pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, special use parks, greenbelts/trails, and open space/natural areas. The Fresno General Plan identifies level of service (LOS) goals by park type, which are 3 acres per 1,000 residents for pocket parks, neighborhood parks, and community parks, and 2 acres per 1,000 residents for regional parks, open space/natural areas, and special use parks.

Regulatory Setting

City of Fresno General Plan: The General Plan establishes long -range concepts for the physical development of the city, with an emphasis on infill dev elopment. The Plan’s Parks, Open Space and Schools Element analyzes Fresno’s parks and recreation facilities and establishes goals and policies for future development of the parks and recreation system. The following features of the General Plan relate to parks and recreation facilities:

• Classification of park types and calculation of existing “city park space”/”city park land;” • Level of Service (LOS) goal to provide 5 acres of city park space per 1,000 residents, including 3 acres of community, neighborhood and pocket parks and 2 acres of regional parks, greenways and trails;
• Parks and Open Space map indicating locations and service areas of existing and potential future parks.

2017 Fresno Parks Master Plan: In 1989, the City of Fresno adopted the “1989 Master Plan for Parks and Recreation” as a component of the City’s General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element. Although the population, demographics, development patterns, land use, and needs of Fresno residents have drastically changed since then, the Parks Master Plan had not been updated until 2017. The 2017 Parks 3 -86
M
ilburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021 Master Plan establishes an updated vision for improving the city’s park and recreation system in order to better serve current and future needs of the people of Fresno.

Do
wntown Neighborhoo ds Community Plan (2016): The Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan further details land use and development characteristics, public facilities, and implementation strategies for Downtown and surrounding areas. The Downtown Neighborhoods Plan emphasizes th e role of street trees in providing identity and supporting quality of life and sets a goal of putting all residents within a half mile of a park or publicly accessible open space. Strategies include partnering with schools, using city- owned vacant land for parks, and evaluating other underutilized parcels for potential parks.

A
ctive Transportation Plan (2016): The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) analyzes conditions for walking and biking in Fresno, sets goal s for the City to equitably improve the safety, convenience, access, and completeness of bike facilities, and recommends specific improvements. The ATP includes maps of existing and future bike and pedestrian networks.

Fresn
o Municipal Code: The following key provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code pr ovide regulatory structure for creating new parks in connection with the development approval process:
• Chapter 12 Article 4.7: Establishes the Park Facilities Fee and authorizes City Council to set the parameters, including the amount of land and the typical facilities to be included in parks. • Chapter 12 Article 4.7 (Section 12-4.705): Residential subdivisions with fewer than 50 parcels shall be responsibl e for paying the park fee but not for dedicating land. Subdivisions with 50 parcels or more shall pay the fee and dedicate 0.6 acres per 1,000 residents in the form of pocket parks.
• Chapter 15 Article 33: The City may impose conditions of approval on subdivisions, as needed to achieve consistency with planning policies, design guidelines, ordinances or State law. • Chapter 15 Article 37: The process for requiring land to be dedicated and reserved for specified public purposes, including parks. The article enables the City to provide the option for a subdivider to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication.
• Chapter 15 Article 41: Provides subdivision design standards, including standards for park location and design.
• Chapter 15 Article 59: Describes the Planned Development process, which allows for variation from base zoning where the City finds that the proposed development is “demonstrably superior” in terms of community design, environmental preservation, and/or community benefit.

Discussion
a) W
ould the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact: The proposed project involves the construction of new park facilities and equipment. The proposed project would not contribute to, or accelerate, the physical de terioration of existing park facilities. There is no impact.
3-87

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

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

Less than Significant Impact: The project proposes to construct a new public park, which involves the addition of recreational facilities and other park amenities. The potential environmental effects of these activities are discussed throughout this initial study. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of any other r ecreational facilities outside of those covered by this initial study/mitigated negative declaration. The impact is less than significant.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any parks and recreation impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-88

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XVII. TRANSPORTATION

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?    
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
   
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?    

Environmental Setting

Vehicular Access: Vehicular access to the project is available North Milburn Ave. and West Dakota Ave.

West Dakota Ave. is designated as a Collector Street and North Milburn Ave. is designated as a Local Street by the Mobility and Transportation Element of the Ci ty of Fresno General Plan. The City of Fresno is the primary authority for all roads within the vicinity of the project site.

Parking: During construction, workers will utilize existing facility parking areas and/or temporary construction staging areas for parking of vehicles and equipment.

Regulatory Setting

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b): Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts

(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one -half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects tha t decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent 3-89

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. (3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whet her 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 vehicle miles traveled and any revisions 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.

City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (June 2020): The City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds provides assessment methodologies, screening criteria, and significance thresholds to evaluate project VMT under CEQA. This Guidelines state that institutional, government, and public uses should be screened from CEQA VMT an alysis because these facilities are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VM T is accounted for in the existing regional average. Additionally, the report includes a VMT/capita screening map which places the project site in a low VMT area.

Figure3-7. City of Fresno average VMT/Capita. Green zones represent areas where VMT/Capita is more than 15% below average regional VMT/Capita. Source: http://gis.lsa-assoc.com/FCOGVMT/

City of Fresno Standard Specifications : The City of Fresno Standard Specifications are developed and enforced by the City of Fresno Public Works Department to guide the development and maintenance of

3-90

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

streets within the City. The cross section drawings contained in the City’s Standard Specifications dictate the development of roads within the City.

City of Fresno General Plan: The Transportation and Mobility Element of the City of Fresno General Plan provides tiered impact criteria based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The proposed project site is located within Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ -III). TIZ-III generally represents areas near or outside the City Limits but within the Sphere of Influence as of December 31, 2012. The City requires the TIZ III to maintain a peak hour LOS standard of D or better for all intersections and roa dway segments. A TIS (Traffic Impact Study) will be required for all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.

Discussion

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

No Impact: The proposed project site is located within Traffic Impact Zone-III. The General Plan states that projects projected to generate 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips would require a traffic impact study. Since this project is not anticipated to generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, a traffic impact study would not be required. The Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering Division staff has reviewed the proposed project and the expected traffic generation will not adversely impact the existing and projected circulation system as analyzed in MEIR. The proposed project does not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy related to the circulation system. There is no impact.

b) Would the project c onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 1 5064.3, Subdivision (b)?

Less than Significant Impact: 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 Levels 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 3-91

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

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 18, 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 P lanning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a re ference 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 be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

T
he City of Fresno VMT Thresholds 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
-ma
king potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider wi th transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.”

Th
e proposed project is eligible to screen out because it would generate less than 500 ADT and is considered to be a public service use that supports community health, safety, and welfare. The Project Screening guidelines state that institutional, government, and public uses may be screened from CEQA VMT analysis because these facilities are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average.

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

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

No Impact: The project does not propose any incompatible uses or include any design features tha t could increase traffic hazards. The project does include one new vehicle access point along Dakota Avenue. This improvement will be subject to review by the City’s engineer to ensure the new access point does not pose any safety risks due to project desi gn. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards in or around the project area there is no impact.

3-92

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact: The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. E mergency access to the site will be available via Dakota Avenue. The accessibility of these roads would not be impacted by the proposed project. Additionally, site plans will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department and Department of Public Works to ensure that there are no impacts related to emergency access. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any transportation impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-93

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:

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

Environmental Setting

Ethnographically, the Fresno area was occupied by the Yokuts. The Yokuts were recognized as having three major subgroups: the Northern Valley, the Foothill, and the Southern Valley. Ethnographic evidence suggests the City of Fresno is located in part of the Southern Valley Yokuts territory. The Yokuts numbered about 25,000, and were clustered into about fifty independent local sub -tribes. Historians believe approximately 22 villages stretched from Stockton northerly to the Tehachapi Mountains southerly, although most were concentrated around Tulare Lake, Kaweah River and its tributaries.

Cultural Resources Record Search: A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center on September 4, 2019. The records search stated there have been two previous cultural resource studies within the project area and four additional studies within one-half mile of the project site. According to the records search, there is one recorded cultural resource within the project area (a cellular tower) and three recorded cultural resources within a one-half mile radius.

These resources consist of a historic era canal, a historic era hospital, and a historic era multi -family residence. The full findings of the cultural records search can be found in Appendix C.

3-94

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Native American Consultation: 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 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).

Additional 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.

Pursuant to AB 52, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah were invited to consult under AB 52. The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on December 17, 2020 which included the required 30-day time period for tribes to request consultation.

Under invitations to consult under AB 52, neither contacted tribe responded.

The site is currently vacant. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations as well as the mitigation measures of the Fresno General Plan MEIR will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional.

Regulatory Setting

Historical Resources: Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be historical under California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources.

Archaeological Resources: As stated above, archaeological resources may be conside red historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is an artifact, object, or site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer important scientific research questions; (2) has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR): Tribal Cultural Resources can include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible 3-95

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register, or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.

Paleontological Resources: For the purposes of this section, “p aleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. Paleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its ecology. Fossilized remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally include the geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.

Native American Reserve (NAR): This designation recognizes tribal trust and reservation lands managed by a Native American Tribe under the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs over which the County has no land use jurisdiction. The County encourages adoption of tribal management plans for these areas that consider compatibility and impacts upon adjacent area facilities and plans.

California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was develope d as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, experimental, or other value. In order for a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:

City of Fresno General Plan: The Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan recognizes that connections to culture and history are essential character tics of a city. This element serves to provide policy guidance to assist in protecting, preserving and enhancing the City of Fresno’s cultural and historic resources. The following polices are related to tribal resources that may apply to the proposed project:

• HCR-2-a. Policy. Identification and Designation of Historic Properties. Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms f or Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate. • HCR-2-c. Policy. Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets 3-96

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy. • HCR-2-d. Policy. Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required b y State law, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape. • HCR-2-f. Policy. Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservat ion guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Discussion

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

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

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the project site. Although no cultural resources were identified, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 will ensure that impacts to this checklist item will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significan t pursuant to cr iteria 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 with Mitigation: The lead agency has not determined there to be any known tribal cultural resources located within the project area. Additionally, there are not believed to be any paleontological resources o r human remains buried within the project area’s vicinity. However, if resources were found to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American Tribe. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 will ensure that any impacts resulting from project implementation remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

3-97

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Mitigation Measures for Impacts to Cultural Resources:

Mit
igation Measure TCR
‐
1: I f previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If
the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of th e site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -
approved institution or person who is capable of providing long -t
erm
preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mit
igation Measure TCR
‐
2: In the event that human remains are unearthed during exc avation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings a s to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, acco rding to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-98

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
   
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?
   
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?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   

Environmental Setting

Wastewater: Sewer services are provided to the site by the City of Fresno. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area. They are the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional Facility) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) . No new wastewater treatment services will be require d as a result of project implementation.

S
olid Waste: The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides the following services: collection of residential and commercial solid waste, recyclables and greenwaste throughout the community at least once a week; disposes of solid waste at the County of Fresno landfill; provides and maintains containers; responds to customer complaints/concerns and provides roll -o ff and compactor services to residential,
multi
-
family and commercial customers.

3-99

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Water: The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (DPU) provides potable water to the majority of the City, including the proposed project site. Fresno’s primary source of potable water is groundwater stored in an aquifer. However, in 2004 the City’s first surface water treatment facility (Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility [NESWTF]) came on line and began delivering approximately 4,060 acre- feet in
2004 t
o residents in northeast Fresno. By 2010, the NESWTF delivered approximately 18,474 acre-fe et of
treated surface water.

S
torm Drainage: The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFC D) provides flood control, local storm drainage management, water conservation and recreational services in the Fresno-Clovis Area. The district is located in the north-central portion of Fresno County between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers.

FMFCD is aut horized to control storm waters within an urban area and rural foothill watershed of approximately 400 square miles, also known as the Fresno County Stream Group. The FMFCD currently has three reservoirs, five regional flood control detention basins planned, and 163 local basins constructed or in planning.

Regulatory Setting

CalRecycle: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Natural Resources – Division 7 contains all current CalRecycle regulations regarding nonhazardous waste management in the state. These regulations include standards for the handling of solid waste, standards for the handling of compostable materials, design standards for disposal facilities, and disposal standards for specific types of waste.

Central Valley RWQCB: The Central Val ley RWQCB requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a SWPPP to manage stormwater generated during project construction will be required.

The Central Valley RWQCB regulates Wastewater Discharges to Land by establishing thresholds for discharged pollutants and implementing monitoring programs to evaluate program compliance. This program regulates approximately 1500 dischargers in the region.

The Central Valley RWQCB is also responsible for implementing the federal program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES Program is the federal permitting program that regulates discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Under this program, a NPDES permit is required to discharge pollutants into Waters of the U.S. There are 350 permitted facilities within the Central Valley Region.

3-100

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or co nstruction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact:

Water
Delivery of domestic water service in the City is provided by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (DPU). The City’s primary source of water is groundwater stored in an aquifer. The City’s water supply system provides 125,000 million gallons of water to over 550,000 residents. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (URWMP), the total projected water demand in 2020 is 235,700 acre feet (af), and the City’s water supplies are projected to meet the full service demands as a result of ongoing water conservation efforts.

The project will include grassy areas and landscaping that will require irrigation, as well as a water play area that will require a supply of water . The City of Fresno Water Division has reviewed and approved the proposed project. The project applicant will be required to pay Water Capacity Fee charges for the installation of new water services and meters to serve the property. The project applicant shall be required to pay all other water-related fees and charges in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code. Since the proposed park use is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the demand for water has been accounted for in t he City’s UWMP, which relies on existing and projected uses to determine future water demands. Therefore, the increased water demand attributed with the proposed project is expected to be minimal in comparison to the City’s overall water demand. In additio n, the City water supplies are anticipated to meet future demands due to ongoing water conservation efforts. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities. As such, the increased water demand is considered less than significant.

Wastewater
The proposed project will include a public restroom on site. The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s wastewater system through the installation of new sewer house branches , and will be subject to Sanitary Sewer Fees. The DPU has verified that sanitary sewer facilities are available to provide service to the site. Wastewater generated by the project would be collected and treated at the the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). The wastewater produced by the proposed project would not exceed the RWRF treatment capacity. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage Facilities
FMFCD’s local storm water development drainage system consists of storm drains, detention and retention basins, and pump stat ion. The District’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan includes 158 drainage areas, each providing service to approximately one to two square miles.

Proposed development that may substantially accelerate the concentration of surface and storm water is subject to the requirements contained in Ordinance 2000-3 subject to the requirements 3-101

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

b) Would the project 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: The proposed project involves the construction of a new neighborhood park. The project will include a restroom and splash pad. Manufacturer s have not yet been selected for the restroom or splash pad facilities, so information pertaining to the equipment specifications or exact water usage is unavailable at this time. The water use for the splash pad is not expected to be significant, as it would only operate 3-6 months out of the year, and the water would be recycled fo r landscaping. Although the proposed project would require new and expanded water connections, the City’s water system has suffici ent supply to meet the anticipated water demands. The impact is less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the proje ct’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact : As previously discussed above, wastewater generated by the project would be collected and treated at the the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). The site’s current and future wastewater service demand has been evaluated by the City’s MEIR. Because the City sewer system has the capacity to meet the project site’s existing demand for wastewater treatment, it can be inferred that the existing wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. The impact is less than significant.

d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, o r 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 will be serviced by Allied Waste, a commercial solid waste franchise. Solid waste is anticipated as a result of project implementation. However, the landfill is allowed to receive 2,200 tons per day, with the permitted capacity of 29.3 million cubic yards. The designated landfill has sufficient project permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and not generate solid waste in excess of State or Local Standards . The impact is less than significant.

e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact: This proposed project conforms to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed project will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on solid waste regulations.

3-102

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any impacts to utilities and service systems beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-103

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   

Environmental Setting

While the City of Fresno is close to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the urbanized areas of the City are largely categorized as little to no threat or moderate fire hazard. Northern portions of the City of Fresno are classified as a high fire hazard area due to the steep terr ain and vegetation along the San Joaquin River Bluff. While the City does have an adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the EOP does not designate evacuation routes. The City of Fresno does not expect to face any expected natural hazards from nearby sources or locations.

There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the proje ct site, and the project site is not categorized as a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. This CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ.

Regulatory Setting

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: geographical areas designated pursuant to California Public Resources Codes Sections 4201 through 4204 and cl assified as Very High, High, or Moderate in State Responsibility Areas or as Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones designated pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 51175 through 51189.

3-104

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Discussion

a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact: The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project will be reviewed by the City of Fresno Fire Chief to ensure the project does not impair emergency response or emergency evacuation. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: The project is located on a flat area of urbanized land with little risk of fire. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

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

No Impact: The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

d
) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐ fire instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is previously developed for urban uses and is not considered to be wildland or at significant risk for wildfires, flooding, or landslides. The project site is relatively flat and the project does not propose any significant drainage changes. The proposed project would not expose people or s tructures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire instability, or drainage changes.

Additionally, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA or a Very High FHSZ. There is no impact.

In Conclusion, the Project will not result in any wildfire impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 202111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.

3-105

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
   
b) 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)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   

Discussion

a) Do
es 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 ‐ s
ustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or e ndangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: This initial study/mitigated negative declaration found the project could have significant i mpacts on biological , historical, and Tribal cultural resources.

However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures for ea ch respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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 oth er current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

3-106

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Less t han Significant Impact : CEQA Guidelines Section 15064( h) 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 policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than c umulatively considerable. 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, a ir pollutants, etc). Impacts would be less than significant.

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

Less Than Significant Impact : 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. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to r educe all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, which results in a less than significant impact to this checklist item.

3-107

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the proj ect. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been created based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Radio Neighborhood Park Project in the City of Fresno.

The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party for Monitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column will be used by the City to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure BIO -1A qualified biologist will
survey the small mammal burrows within the Project
footprint prior to the c ommencement of ground
disturbance. If the biologist observes signs indicating the presence, or recent past presence for BNLL, SJKF,
or

CTS, monitoring efforts should be initiated, and the
feature location avoided by a buffer of 50 feet (or
more) until it has been confirmed that no SJKF are
present within the Project footprint.

City of Fresno
Within 15 days
prior to the start
of construction
City of
Fresno
Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Prior to the
commencement of ground disturbance activities, a
qualified biologist will evaluate the small mammal
burrows on the Project site by monitoring with
cameras to confirm the presence or absence of GGS,
SJKF, and BNLL. If the biologi
st observes signs
indicating the presence, or recent past presence for
GGS, SJKF, or BNLL, monitoring efforts should be
initiated and the feature location avoided by a buffer
of 50 feet (or more) until it has been confirmed that
no GGS, SJKF, or BNLL are present within the Project
footprint
City of Fresno
Within 15 days
prior to the start
of construction
City of
Fresno
Mitigation Measure BIO -3: Project construction
should be conducted outside of the nesting season
(March 1 to September 15). If Project construction
occurs during nesting season, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the Project
site and the surrounding habitat for nesting birds to
avoid any adverse impacts leading to nest failure or
City of Fresno Ongoing during
construction
City of
Fresno
3-108

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
abandonment. The preconstruction survey will be
conducted no more than 30 days before the
commencement of Project construction.

Active raptor nests should be avoided by at least 150
feet, and non -raptor nests should be avoided by at
least 50 feet. All nests should be monitored daily
during construction until the young have fledged. All
nests should be monitored during Proje ct activities
for signs of distress. If signs of distress are observed, Project activities should be adjusted to prevent
further disturbance to the birds.

Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If previously u nknown
resources are encountered before or during grading
activities, construction shall stop in the immediate
vicinity of the find and a qualified historical
resources specialist shall be consulted to determine
whether the resource requires further study. The
qualified historical resources specialist shall ma ke
recommendations to the City on the measures that
shall be implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including but not limited to excavation of
the finds and evaluation of the finds in accord ance
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique
historical resources as defined under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be
identified by the monitor and recommended to the
Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant
resources could
include avoidance or capping,
incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or
open space, or data recovery excavations of the
finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these resources. Any historical
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be
provided to a City
-
approved institution or person
who is capable of pro viding long-te
rm preservation
to allow future scientific study.

City of Fresno Ongoing during
construction
City of
Fresno
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event that human
remains are unearthed during excavation and
grading activities of any future development project,
all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to
Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no
further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a).

If the remains are determined to be of Native
City of Fresno Ongoing during
construction
City of
Fresno
3-109

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours
notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely
descendent of the deceased Native American, who
shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed
with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American
remains, the landowner shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted
cultural or archaeological standards or practices,
where the Native American human remains are
located is not damaged or disturbed by further
development activity until the landowner has
discussed and conferred with the most likely
descendants regarding their recommendations, if
applicable, taking into account the possibility of
multiple human remains. The landowner shall
discuss and confer with the descendants all
reasonable options regarding the descendants'
preferences for treatment.

Mitigation Measure TCR -1: If previously unknown
resources are encountered before or during grading
activities, construction shall stop in the immediate
vicinity of the find and a qualified historical
resources specialist shall be consulted to determine
whether the resource requires further study. The
qualified historical resources specialist s hall make
recommendations to the City on the measures that
shall be implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including but not limited to excavation of
the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique
historical resources as defined under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be
identified by the monitor and recommended to the
Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant
resources could
include avoidance or capping,
incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or
open space, or data recovery excavations of the
finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of
the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these resources. Any historical
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City
-
approved institution or person
who is capable of providing long -
term preservation
to allow future scientific study.

City of Fresno Ongoing during
construction
City of
Fresno
3-110

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: In the event that human
remains are unearthed during excavation and
grading activities of any future development project,
all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to
Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no
further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a).

If the remains are determined to be of Native
American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours
notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely
descendent of the deceased Native American, who
shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed
with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American
remains, the landowner shall
ensure that the
immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted
cultural or archaeological standards or practices,
where the Native American human remains are
located is not damaged or disturbed by further
development activity until the landowner has
discussed and conferred with the most likely
descendants regarding their recommendations, if
applicable, taking into account the possibility of
multiple human remains. The l andowner shall
discuss and confer with the descendants all
reasonable options regar ding the descendants'
preferences for treatment.

City of Fresno Ongoing during
construction
City of
Fresno

3-111

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources

1. AB 3098 List

2. EMFAC2014

3. City of Fresno General Plan

4. City of Fresno General Plan MEIR

5. City of Fresno Zoning Ordinance

6. City of Fresno VMT Thresholds

7. Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

8. Engineering Standards, City of Fresno

9. SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines

10. Flood Insurance Rate Maps

11. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook

12. 2019 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines

13. California Building Code 2019 Edition

14. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)

15. “Construction Noise Handbook.” U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration.

16. Government Code Section 65962.5

17. California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Mitigation Measures (http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf

18. PG&E 2017 Power Content Label

19. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

Section 4
List of Preparers
4-1

Milburn/Dakota Park
FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno CA 93721

SECTION 4
List of Preparers

Project Title: Milburn/Dakota Park

List of Preparers

4-Creeks Inc.
• David Duda, AICP
• Emily Huang, Assistant Planner

Persons and Agencies Consulted

The following individuals and agencies contributed to this Initial Study:

City of Fresno
• Diane Printz-White, PARCS Department

California Historic Resources Information System
• Celeste Thomson, Coordinator

SOAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.
• Jon Sarquis, Senior Marketing Manager

Community Works Design Group
• Allison Rush, Landscape Architect
• Tim Maloney, Landscape Architect

EXHIBIT __
City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for Environmental Assessment No. ________ Conducted for [Application] No(s). ______________ , March 2020 PURSUANT TO CERTIFIED MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Progress
D - Responsi ble Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-wide Program
F - Not Applicable

The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity res ponsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

This mitigation measure m onitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources C ode (PRC). It was certified as part of the Fresno City Council’s approval of the MEIR for the Fresno General Plan update (Fresno City Council Resolution 2014-225, adopted December 18, 2014).

Letter designations to the right of each MEIR mitigation measure listed in this Exhibit note how the mitigation measure relates to the environmental assessment of the above- listed project, according to the key found at right and at the bottoms of the following pages:

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Section 5.1 - Aesthetics:

MM AES-1. Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
(PW) and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept. (DARM)

Page 1 ends

MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________ December 2020

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Aesthetics (continued):

MM AES-2: Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits

DARM.

MM AES-3: Lighting systems for non- residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits

DARM
MM AES-4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT -L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0
horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT -L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater
Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits

DARM
A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 2 ends

MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________ December 2020

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Aesthetics (continued):

MM AES-5: Materials used on building facades shall be non- reflective.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM
Section 5.3 - Air Quality:

MM AIR-1: Projects that include five or more heavy -duty truck deliveries per day with sensitive receptors located within 300 feet of the truck loading area shall provide a screening analysis to determine if the project has the potential to exceed criteria pollutant concentration based standards and
thresholds for NO2 and PM2.5. If projects exceed screening criteria, refined dispersion modeling and health risk
assessment shall be accomplished and if needed, mitigation measures to reduce impacts shall be included in the project to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. Mitigation
measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access ro utes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less.

Verification comments:

Analysis to be
completed prior
to development
project approval;
posting of signs
to be completed
prior to use of
truck unloading/
loading areas

DARM
A - Incor
porated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 3 ends

MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Air Quality (continued):

MM AIR-2: Projects that result in an increased cancer risk of 10 in a million or exceed criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards shall implement site- specific measures that reduce toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure to reduce excess cancer risk to less than 10 in a million. Possible control measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less • Construct block walls to reduce the flow of emissions toward sensitive receptors
• Install a vegetative barrier downwind from the TAC source that can absorb a portion of the diesel PM emissions
• For projects proposing to locate a new building containing sensitive receptors near existing sources of TAC emissions, install HEPA filters in HVAC systems to reduce TAC emission levels exceeding risk thresholds.
• Install heating and cooling services at truck stops to eliminate the need for idling during overnight stops to run onboard systems.
(continued on next page)
Control
measures to be
incorporated into
project design
prior to
development
project approval

DARM
A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 4 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Air Quality (continued):

MM AIR-2 (continued from previous page):
• For large distribution centers where the owner controls the vehicle fleet, provide facilities to support alternative fueled trucks powered by fuels such as natural gas or bio-diesel • Utilize electric powered material handling equipment where feasible for the weight and volume of material to be moved.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]

MM AIR-3: Require developers proposing projects on ARB’s list of projects in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook) warranting special consideration to prepare a cumulative health risk assessment when sensitive receptors are located within the distance screening criteria of the facility as listed in the ARB Handbook or newer regulatory criteria that may be adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)..

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM
A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 5 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Air Quality (continued):

MM AIR-4: Require developers of projects containing
sensitive receptors to provide a cumulative health risk assessment at project locations exceeding ARB Land Use
Handbook distance screening criteria or newer regulatory criteria that may be adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM
MM AIR-5: Require developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD to prepare an odor
impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City to the extent
needed to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM
A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 6 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources:

MM BIO-1: Construction of a proposed project should avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special -status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special - status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any special - status species. If a special-status species are determined to occupy any port
ion of a project site, avoidance and
minimization measures shall be incorporated into the
construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
and during the
construction
phase of the
project
DARM

MM BIO-2: Direct or incidental take of any state or federally listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the C alifornia
Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) 2081 and U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service ( USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes must take place prior to any action that (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM

A - Incor
porated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 7 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO.

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Process
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

Page 8 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-2 (continued from previous page)
may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case- by-case basis through agency consultation.

Verification comments:

[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
BIO-3: Development within the Planning Area should avoid, where possible, special-status natural communities and
vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special-status natural community or suitable habitat for special-status species, compensatory habitat-based
mitigation is required under CEQA and the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). Mitigation will consist of preserving on-site habitat, restoring similar habitat or

purchasing off-site credits from an approved mitigation bank.

Compensatory mitigation will be determined through
consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio will be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special-status natural communities to a less than significant (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources (continued):

MM BIO-3 (continued from previous page):
level. Agreed-upon mitigation ratios will depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special -status species. The specific mitigation for project level impacts will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]

MM BIO-4: Proposed projects within the Planning Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species
protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre- construction clearance survey must be conducted to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities (continued on next page)

Prior to
development
project approval
and during
construction
activities
DARM

A - Incor
porated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 9 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-4 (continued from previous page):
may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]

MM BIO-5: If a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special -status natural community with potential to occur in the Planning Area, compensatory habitat -based mitigation shall be required to red
uce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must
involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off - site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special-
status natural community. Mitigation must be
conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat -based mitigation will be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency ( i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS) on a case- by-case basis.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 10 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources (continued):

MM BIO-6: Project impacts that occur to riparian habitat may also result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. CDFW and/or consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , determination of
mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, shall b e implemented as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway.

Verification comments:

Prior t
o
development
project approval
DARM

MM BIO-7: Project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a special-status natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special -status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. Project impacts to special -status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special-status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM

A - Inc
orporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 11 ends

December 2020
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. _____________

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources (continued):

MM BIO-8: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the
impacted wetland. .

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM

MM BIO-9: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and
construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and (continued on next page)

Prior to
development
project approval;
but for long-term
operational
BMPs, prior to
issuance of
occupancy
DARM
A - Incorpor
ated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 12 ends

Fresno City CouncilJune 30, 2022

Fresno City Council
June 30, 2022