Fresno City Council
September 29, 2022

Exhibit M

1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Form for:

Environmental Assessment No. T-6345/P22-00411/P22-00442

1. Project title:

Autumn Ridge (Annexation Application No. P22-00411, Plan Amendment-Rezone Application No. P22-00442, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6345 (“T-6345”))

2. Lead agency name and address:

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

3. Contact person and phone number:

Rob Holt, Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
(559) 621-8056

4. Project location:

Located at 2121 South Willow Avenue in Fresno
Site Latitude: 36°43'12.2" N
Site Longitude: 119°43'31.4"W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 14S, Range 21E Section 18 – California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 481-020-01 (Project Site for T-6345), 481-060-02S, 473- 030-10, and 473-030-63

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

D.R. Horton
419 West Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Landowner:

Ohanesian Holdings, LLC
3770 West Wathen Avenue
Fresno, CA 93711
2 6. General & Community Plan Land Use Designation:

Current: Medium Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential

7. Zoning:

Current: ±117.97 acres of Fresno County AL20 (Limited Agricultural 20-acre minimum)
Proposed: ± 38.37 acres of City of Fresno RS-5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density)
± 37.90 acres of City of Fresno RS-5/ANX (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) ± 41.70 acres of City of Fresno RM-2/ANX (Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay)

8. Description of Project:

1. Annexation Application No. P22-00411 requests authorization to initiate annexation proceedings for the California-Willow No. 4 Reorganization proposing incorporation of the subject property within the City of Fresno; and, detachment from the Kings River Conservation District and Fresno County Fire Protection District.

2. Pre-zone Application No. P22-00442 proposing to pre-zone: approximately 38.37 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AL20 (Limited Agriculture) zone district to the City of Fresno RS-5 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) zone district; approximately 37.90 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AL20 (Limited Agriculture) zone district to the RS-5/ANX (SingleFamily Residential, Medium Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district; and, approximately 41.70 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AL20 (Limited Agriculture) zone district to the City of Fresno RM-2/ANX (Multi-Family Residential, Urban Neighborhood/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district.

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6345 proposing to subdivide approximately 36.75 acres of the subject property into a 199-lot conventional single-family residential development subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval dated September 7, 2022.

The subject properties are currently undeveloped parcels surrounded by single-family residences, a middle school, undeveloped land, and agriculture.

Entitlements:
3 The Project proposes an Annexation and Pre-zone of approximately 123.74 acres, of which T-6345 encompasses approximately 36.75 acres. The total annexation area will include parcels APNs: 481-020-01 (T-6345 parcel), 481-060-02S, 473-030-10 and 473-030-63 and the entirety of East California Avenue (alignment), which is currently railroad right-of-way, and South Willow Avenue within the annexation boundary, per the request of the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”).

The proposed T-6345 would allow the applicant, D.R. Horton, to construct a singlefamily residential subdivision on approximately 36.75 acres with an approximate 2- acre neighborhood park site (Outlot D on T-6345). The proposed T-6345 intends to create 199 single-family residential lots and appurtenant infrastructure consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential and proposed zoning designation of RS-5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density/Urban Growth Management), respectively. The Project also includes trail dedication to the City along the north property boundary for future trail connection (Outlot F on T-6345) to the existing Trails and Rails planned corridor.

T-6345 proposes primary access from South Willow Avenue, which runs parallel to the western boundary of the Project site. Two stubbed access points are proposed to the east in order to facilitate connections to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6379, which was recently approved by the City of Fresno Planning Commission on May 18, 2022. The Project is located within the Roosevelt Community Plan Area and is not within a Specific Plan Area. The Project site is relatively flat with minor variations in elevation of two feet. The average elevation of the Project site is approximately 306 feet above mean sea level. Once developed, the Project will drain stormwater into existing storm drain basin located south of the Project site. According to the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (“FMFCD”), there are three inlet boundaries within the Project site and three planned inlets for the boundaries that feed into a retention basin. Drainage easements will straddle property lines of lots along the southern boundary of the project site in order to connect to FMFCD facilities. In addition, the approximate 2-acre park (Outlot D of T-6345) will be located in the northwestern corner of the project site and will connect to a 36 foot trail that will be overlayed on the FID easement along the norther portion of the project site (Outlot F of T-6345). 4 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (from Annexation Boundary):

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Medium Low Density
Residential, Urban
Neighborhood, &
Open Space –
Ponding Basin
RS-4 (Single-Family
Residential, Medium Low
Density)
RM-2
(Multi-Family Residential, Urban
Neighborhood)
Single-Family & MultiFamily Residences,
Ponding Basin
East
Medium Density
Residential & Urban
Neighborhood
RS-5 (Single-Family Residential,
Medium Density)
RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential,
Urban Neighborhood)
Single-Family
Residences and an
undeveloped parcel
approved for a 200
single-family
residential subdivision
South
Medium Density
Residential, Public &
Institutional – Middle
School, and Open
Space – Ponding
Basin
RS-5
(Single-Family Residential,
Medium Density)
PI (Public & Institutional)
OS (Open Space)
Middle School,
Single-Family
Residences, and a
Ponding Basin
West Medium Density
Residential
RS-5
(Single-Family Residential,
Medium Density)
Single-Family
Residences

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, City of Fresno Building & Safety Services Division; City of Fresno Department of Public Works; City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities; County of Fresno, Department of Community Health; County of Fresno, Department of Public Works and Planning; City of Fresno Fire Department; Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; Fresno Irrigation District; and, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

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

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

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above mentioned tribes on April 15, 2022. The 30-day comment period ended on May 16, 2022. Neither tribe requested consultation. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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. _X_
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 (EIR) is required.
_ _ I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed 7 adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

________________________________08/12/2022______________________________ Rob Holt, Planner III Date

EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT

ASSESSED INPROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 2019050005 PREPARED FOR THE APPROVED FRESNO
GENERAL PLAN (PEIR):

1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the correspondingmeanings:
a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the thresholdunder consideration, but that impact is less than significant;
c. “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supportedif the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like I I
8 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 factorsas well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Projectspecific screening analysis).

3. 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.

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,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 determinationis made, an EIR is required.

5. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "PotentiallySignificant 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 describedin (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, PEIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlierdocument pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effectswere addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific 9 conditions for the Project.

7. 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.

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less thansignificance.
10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the Project is in an urbanized
area, would the Project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The site is located within an area primarily consisting of large undeveloped parcels and single-family residences within the County of Fresno. Parcels to the south consist of single-family residences and a retention basin. Parcels to the north include agricultural crops and rural residences. Parcels to the east and west are undeveloped. The Project site is relatively flat with minor variations in elevation of two feet. The average elevation of the Project site is approximately 306 feet above mean sea level. 11 A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides a distant view of highly valued natural or man‐made landscape features for the benefit of the general public. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas can be obtained as well as locations where valued urban landscape features can be viewed in the distance.

The City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2019050005 (“PEIR”) acknowledges that the City has not identified or designated scenic vistas within the Project area. Although no scenic vista has been designated, it is acknowledged that scenic vistas within the City could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the San Joaquin River along the northern boundary of the Planning Area and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.

The River bluffs provide distant views of the San Joaquin River as well as areas north of the River. However, the majority of these views are from private properties. There are limited views of the San Joaquin River from Weber Avenue, Milburn Avenue, McCampbell Drive, Valentine Avenue, Palm Avenue, State Route (SR) 41, Friant Road, and Woodward Park.

There are various locations throughout the eastern portion of the City that provide views of the Sierra Nevada foothills that are located northeast and east of the Planning Area. These distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills are impeded many days during the year by the poor air quality in the Fresno region. Distant views of man‐made landscape features include the Downtown Fresno buildings that provide a unique skyline. Given the site’s distance from the San Joaquin River (approximately ten miles northwest of the site (as the crow flies)), the proposed Project will not interfere with public views of the San Joaquin River environs. Furthermore, as there are no designated public or scenic vistas on or adjacent to the Project site, there is no potential for adverse effect on a scenic vista.

The Project site is located within an area with a planned land use designation allowing for single-family residential development within the City of Fresno General Plan map, is outside of the San Joaquin River bluffs and not near the Downtown Fresno area.

Properties further to the north, east, south and west have been developed with singlefamily residential neighborhoods. The subject Project site is currently undeveloped.

The existing topography of the Project site is nearly flat. There will be no impacts to scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
12 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing and contribute positively to a distinct community or region. The scenic resources within the City include landscaped open spaces, such as parks and golf courses. Additional scenic resources within the City include areas along the San Joaquin River (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. The Project site is devoid of buildings, native trees or rock outcroppings. There are remnant nut trees from the previous agricultural use on the site, but they are not considered a scenic resource. The annexation parcel to the north is devoid of any scenic resource component but is still in nut production.

According to the California Department of Transportation Mapping of State Scenic Highways, there are no State Scenic Highways in Fresno County. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways, the closest is a portion of SR 168 that is approximately 6-miles northeast of the Project site and will not be impacted. The closest State Scenic Highway is SR 41 in Madera County and is approximately 30- miles north-east of the Project site.

The Project site is not within the vicinity of a State designated scenic highway and would have no impact or substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Project site is predominantly surrounded by existing or proposed residential development and is considered an urban area. Given the Project site’s distance from the San Joaquin River (approximately 12 miles north of the site), the proposed Project will not interfere with public views of the San Joaquin River environment. The Project would create new single-family residential development similar in appearance to the existing residential development surrounding the site.

The PEIR recognizes and acknowledges that poor air quality reduces existing views within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence as a whole; and therefore, finds that a 13 less than significant impact will result to views of highly valued features such as the Sierra Nevada foothills from future development on and in the vicinity of the Project site.

The Project will not damage, nor will it degrade the visual character or quality of the Project site and its surroundings, given that the Project site is primarily vacant, in an area that is also primarily single-family residential and vacant; and, in an area generally planned for and developed with residential uses. As such, impacts to the visual character or quality of the site would be less than significant due to the development improving the existing character of the site and the surrounding properties being of a similar use. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Future development of the site will create a new source of light or glare within the area. However, given that the Project site is within an area where development has already occurred with residential uses, which already affect day and nighttime views in the Project site to a certain degree, no significant impact will occur. The Project would incorporate the applicable mitigation measures pertaining to light and glare included in the PEIR (AES-4.1 and AES-4.2). Furthermore, through the entitlement process, staff will ensure that streetlights are located in areas that will minimize light sources to the neighboring properties in accordance with the mitigation measures of the PEIR pertaining to light and glare.

In conclusion, with PEIR mitigation measures incorporated in the Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022, the Project will not result in any additional impacts related to aesthetics. The Project impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the aesthetic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

AES-4.1: Lighting for Street and Parking Areas. 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.
14 AES-4.2: Lighting for Public Facilities. 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. 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Based upon the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site (annexation boundary) includes properties designated as “Farmland of Local Importance,” “Prime Farmland,” and “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Farmland of Local Importance is defined as farmable lands within Fresno County that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture and grazing land. Prime Farmland is defined as having the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a ten-acre parcel.

The Project site is undeveloped and is not currently utilized for agricultural purposes and is designated as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban and Built-Up Land.

Development of the Project will not result in conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and will have a less than significant impact.

The annexation portion to the north includes 42.3-acres of prime farmland and conversion of that land by that owner could be considered a significant impact.

The City has not yet adopted a Farmland Preservation Program as described in GP PEIR MM AG-1.1. Therefore, the final section of MM AG-1.1 applies to the annexation 17 parcel to the north, and will be required to mitigate on an individual basis as outlined below.

The northeast portion of the annexation will be designated and zoned for residential development that would have a non-agricultural use. However, because the DOC classifies the land as being Prime Farmland, the Developer will be required to provide in-kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of 42.3-acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non-agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the that Project site. The land selected for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of
Conservation(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grantprograms/Documents/grant/SALCP%20Model%20ACE%20Template%20(2014- 2015)%20Final%2012.4.2015.pdf).

There will be no loss pf Prime Farmland or impact to the parcels to the north until it is developed in the future. Mitigation AG 1.1 will be applicable to that property upon development.

Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate the agricultural resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12,2022
MM AG-1.1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer of APN 473-030-10/63 shall complete the following measures to mitigate the loss of agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 for the net acreage before conversion. (The net acreage calculation shall exclude existing roads and areas already developed with structures, and a plot plan shall be submitted to substantiate the net acreage calculation, along with written evidence of compliance.).

Mitigation land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and/or Unique Farmland and be of similar agricultural quality or higher, as established by the California Department of Conservation. Completion of the selected measure or, with the City of Fresno Planning Director’s approval, a combination of measures can occur on qualifying land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, or Kern County) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.
18 Developer shall provide in-kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of 42.3 acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non-agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the Project site. The land selected for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of Conservation(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grantprograms/Documents/grant/SALCP%20Model%20ACE%20Template%20(2014- 2015)%20Final%2012.4.2015.pdf).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The Project site is zoned AL20 (Limited Ag) but is not subject to an existing Williamson Act Contract. However, the site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and is anticipated to be converted to a non- agricultural use similar to those properties in the vicinity. With approval of the proposed pre-zoning that would change the General Plan land use and zoning from the existing AL-20 to RS-5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density), the property will be consistent for residential development. Therefore, the proposed Project on the subject site will not affect existing agriculturally zoned or Williamson Act Contract parcels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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))?
The Project site is not considered 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). There are no forest lands identified on the Project site or within its vicinity; therefore, there would be no conflict with or impacts to zoning for forest land or timber land. Therefore, the proposed Project will not conflict with any forest land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
19 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project site is not considered forest land (as stated above in Impact II-c) and is located within the urban bounds of the City of Fresno and is surrounded by development. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in the loss of any forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Project includes the north parcel that is 42.3 acres of designated Prime Farmland. Therefore, MM AG-1.1 applies to the annexation parcel to the north and will be required to mitigate at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of 42.3-acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification.

The implementation of the Project would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the Project site or Planning Area. The 42.3-acres of Prime Farmland are not a part of the proposed subdivision and will remain as Farmland until those property owners decide to develop. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM AG-1.1
20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan (e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
The analyses presented in this section are based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment prepared for the Project (VRPA, 2021a), attached as Appendix A.

Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the City of Fresno and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) which is regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). This region has had chronic non-attainment of federal and state clean air standards for ozone/oxidants and particulate matter due to a combination of topography 21 and climate. The San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is hemmed in on three sides by mountain ranges, with prevailing winds carrying pollutants and pollutant precursors from urbanized areas to the north (and in turn contributing pollutants and precursors to downwind air basins). The Mediterranean climate of this region, with a high number of sunny days and little or no measurable precipitation for several months of the year, fosters photochemical reactions in the atmosphere, creating ozone and particulate matter. Regional factors affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants within the SJVAB.

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

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide and is the second largest air basin in the state. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coastal Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

The Valley is basically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The Valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The Valley, thus, could be considered a “bowl” open only to the north.

During the summer, wind speed, and direction data indicate that summer wind usually originates at the north end of the Valley and flows in a south-southeasterly direction through the Valley, through Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In addition, the Altamont Pass also serves as a funnel for pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin into the region.

During the winter, wind speed and direction data indicate that wind occasionally originates from the south end of the Valley and flows in a north-northwesterly direction. Also during the winter months, the Valley generally experiences light, variable winds (less than 10 mph). Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations. The SJVAB has an “Inland Mediterranean” climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The Valley floor is characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler winters. For the entire Valley, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95ºF.

Temperatures below freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low temperature is 45ºF.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Solar energy heats up the Earth’s surface, which in turn radiates heat and warms the lower atmosphere. Therefore, as altitude increases, the air temperature usually decreases due to increasing distance from the source of heat. A 22 reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Inversions can exist at the surface or at any height above the ground and tend to act as a lid on the Valley, holding in the pollutants that are generated here.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The SJVAPCD considered basin-wide cumulative impacts to air quality when developing its significance thresholds. The SJVAPCD’s air quality significance thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans and is not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. These are developed based on the ambient concentrations of the pollutant for each source. Because the Project would not exceed the air quality significance thresholds on the project-level and would not otherwise conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans, the cumulative emissions would not be a significant contribution to a cumulative impact.

Consistency with Air Quality Plans (AQPs)
A measure for determining if the Project is consistent with the air quality plans is if the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual Projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards.

To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
• 2016 Ozone Plan
• 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation • 2016 PM2.5 Plan
As discussed below, emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the District’s significance thresholds. As shown in impact (b) below, the Project would not result in CO hotspots that would violate CO standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations.

Compliance with Applicable Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A description of rules and regulations that apply to this Project is provided below.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR) is a control measure in the 2006 23 PM10 Plan that requires NOX and PM10 emission reductions from development Projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The NOX emission reductions help reduce the secondary formation of PM10 in the atmosphere (primarily ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) and also reduce the formation of ozone. Reductions in directly emitted PM10 reduce particles such as dust, soot, and aerosols. Rule 9510 is also a control measure in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8‐Hour Ozone Standard. Developers of Projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on‐site measures or pay off‐site mitigation fees. The Project is required to comply with Rule 9510.

Regulation VIII - Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM10 for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Projects over 10 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The Project is required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.

Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641 - Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving and Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and the coatings, so Project compliance is ensured.

The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and applicable control measures of the AQP. The Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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?
Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short‐term construction activities and long‐term operation of the Project. Localized emissions from Project construction and operation are assessed under Impact c) below using concentration‐based thresholds that determine if the Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance. 24 The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Reduction of these pollutants during any future development construction activities as a result of the approved Project will be required.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOX
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOX
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5
The SJVAPCD Air Impact Assessment (AIA) applications for residential development projects that include 50 or more dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed 199-unit singlefamily residential development is subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and an AIA application is required. Upon further development of the Project, the developer will be required to reduce any project-specific criteria pollutant emissions to have a less than significant impact.

Construction activity emissions are generated by the temporary use of equipment such as graders, bulldozers, trenchers, etc, and vehicles related to the development of the site.

As shown in Table 3-1, the Project’s emissions during temporary construction activities would not exceed established air district thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions would be less than significant.

Table 3-1
Project Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
(tons/year)
Construction Emissions 3.45 3.68 2.75 0.01 1.07 0.55 500.01 SJVAPCD Construction Emissions
Thresholds
10 10 100 27 15 15 NA
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No No
25 Operation of the Project would also create additional criteria pollutants, particularly as a result of increased vehicular emissions, as well as landscape maintenance equipment and other components routinely used in residential developments. The long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than SJVAPCD significance threshold levels and would, therefore, not pose a significant impact to criteria air pollutants. These impacts would not exceed thresholds as shown in Table 3-2, below.

Table 3-2
Total Project Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
(tons/year)
Construction Emissions 2.80 2.07 10.94 0.02 2.07 0.59 2,685.6 SJVAPCD Construction
Emissions Thresholds
10 10 100 27 15 15 NA
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No No
MM AIR-2.1 requires applicants for new development projects to incorporate mitigation measures, where applicable, into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities, such as restricting idling of construction equipment, limiting grading operations to reduce disturbed areas, encouraging the removal of vegetation only when necessary. AIR-2.2 requires project applicants for new development projects to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities, to the extent feasible. AIR-2.2 maximizing the use of solar energy on rooftops, the planting of trees in landscaping, the use of light-colored roofing, the use of electric lawn mowers, high efficiency appliances and the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products. By implementing the mitigation measures as identified in the GP PEIR, the Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Therefore, by implementing the mitigation measures identified in the GP PEIR as applicable to the Project, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate the air quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022
AIR-2.1: Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the 26 SJVAPCD adopted threshold of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions include but are not limited to:
• Install temporary construction power supply meters on site and use these to provide power to electric power tools whenever feasible. If temporary electric power is available on site, forbid the use of portable gasoline- or diesel-fueled electric generators. • Use of diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on diesel equipment, as feasible.
• Maintain equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes (per California Air Resources Board [CARB] regulation).
• Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and times of exposure. • Avoid excavation and grading during wet weather.
• Limit on-site construction routes and stabilize construction entrance(s). • Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (e.g., cement, mortar, or dirt track-out) immediately.

Never attempt to wash them away with water. Use only minimal water for dust control. • Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting or tarp.

MM AIR-2.2: Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project operationrelated air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for 27 loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy.
• Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? See Impact (b), above
Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre‐existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The District considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest off‐site sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the Project site to the north and west, and Elizabeth Terronez Middle School located approximately 100 feet southwest of the Project. As a residential land use development Project, proposed residences included as part of the Project would be considered sensitive receptors once occupied.

Off‐site Sensitive Receptors
Impacts to receptors located outside the Project boundaries would occur primarily during Project construction. Construction emissions commencing with the year 2021 and continue until Project buildout. Construction activities are expected to occur over several years as the subdivision is gradually built out; however, most emissions are expected to occur during the initial site preparation and grading activities and to a lesser extent during ground up construction. For criteria pollutants, impacts to receptors located outside of the Project are based on emissions during the highest emissions during any construction year. Emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project are less than SJVAPCD screening criteria. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

On‐site Sensitive Receptors
The Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions. Construction activities produce short‐term emissions that would not contribute substantially to cancer risk, which is estimated on a 70‐year exposure period.
28 Construction: ROG
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.

The acute (short‐term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response.

In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction would be less than significant.

Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health‐based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.

The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying Projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on‐site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO. There is no localized emission standard for ROG and most types of ROG are not toxic and have no health‐based standard; however, ROG was included for informational purposes only.

Operation: ROG
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from Project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles and miles of roadway and in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.

Operation: PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2
As shown in Table 3-2, localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 would not exceed the SJVAPCD screening thresholds at full Project build‐out. Residential development is an insignificant source of these pollutants, except for Projects that allow woodburning devices that emit PM10, PM2.5 in wood smoke. The Project will include only 29 natural gas‐fueled fireplaces and inserts that are insignificant sources of PM2.5 and PM10. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis
Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow‐ moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the Project vicinity.

A sensitivity analysis using the CALINE4 CO Hotspot model was run for the General Plan PEIR to determine the volume of trips that would be required to exceed the most stringent CO standard. At triple the predicted peak for General Plan buildout of 36,000 peak‐hour trips, the hourly concentration was 7.5 ppm and an 8‐hour concentration of 6.0 ppm.

Based on this analysis, it is extremely unlikely that a CO hotspot will occur in the Plan Area. CO emissions are predicted to continue to decline as old vehicles are retired and cleaner new motor vehicles take their place.

Therefore, no CO hotspot modeling is required for new Projects during General Plan Buildout unless intersection volumes exceed 36,000 peak‐hour trips, which is not anticipated to occur with the Project as discussed under XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Results of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for the Project indicated that the maximum predicted cancer risk, chronic health hazard, and acute health hazard for residences and on-site/off-site workplaces are below the significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risks and 1.0 for non-cancer health risks. Therefore, the Projects health risk impacts are considered less than significant (VRPA, 2021a).

The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant. The Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions during construction or operation. The Project is not in an area with suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. The Project site is not in an area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day‐ care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be 30 given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas. Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor.

According to the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling (Alameda Superior Court Case No.

RGI0548693), impacts of existing sources of odors on the Project are not subject to CEQA review (California Builiding Association v Bay Area Air Quality Mangement District, 2015).

Therefore, the analysis to determine if the Project would locate new sensitive receptors near an existing source of odor is provided for information only. The SJVAPCD has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin.

Project as a Generator
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The Project would not engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the Project would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.

During construction, the various diesel‐powered vehicles and equipment in use on‐site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries.

Project as a Receiver
With the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, analysis of odor impacts on receivers is not required for CEQA compliance. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for information only.

As a residential development, the Project has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources. However, there are no major odor-generating sources within screening distance of the site. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant.

The Project will not generate odorous emissions given the nature or characteristics of the Project. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJV Air Basin. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in discussed above along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. The Project will not generate odorus emissions given the residential nature of the Project. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
32 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented in this section are based on a Biological Reconnaissance Evaluation (QK, 2020a), prepared for the Project, which is attached as Appendix B. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? A biological reconnaissance survey and database review were completed by qualified biologists to characterize the existing conditions onsite and determine the potential for special-status species and other sensitive biological resources to occur onsite and be impacted by the Project. No special-status wildlife species or their sign were observed on the Project site or within the biological survey area (BSA) 500-foot buffer. The survey noted that most of the Project site is highly disturbed and contains no habitat that would support most of the special-status wildlife species. There were 22 special-status wildlife species identified in the CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS database queries that could potentially occur on the Project site. There were 30 special-status wildlife species documented within a 10-mile radius of the Project site. However, the survey indicated that there are no historical records on-site, though the site is located at the southeastern edge of 10-mile occurrence records for 9 special-status wildlife species.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
There were no nests of migratory birds or raptors on the Project site at the time of the survey. There was one walnut tree on-site that could potentially serve as nesting habitat, but most of the existing trees were either dead or degraded pistachio trees. Many of the trees were eliminated by the recent fire. More than two-dozen mourning doves, which are 33 a ground nesting species, were observed during the reconnaissance survey. No ground nests were found. A pair of red-tailed hawks were hunting on the southern side of the site, but no active nest was present. There is nesting habitat outside the Project site within the BSA, but that habitat is limited mostly to ornamental tree species. There are several large eucalyptus trees north of the site adjacent to an existing active orchard, but no nests were found in those trees or in any other tree observed within the BSA. Implementation of BIO1.1, such as nesting bird surveys, raptor surveys, and establishing nest avoidance zones where necessary are recommended which, when implemented, will reduce Project impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.

San Joaquin Kit Fox and American Badger
The San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely to occur on any portion of the Project site. The nearest record of occurrence for this species was from the 1980s and is more than 8.4 miles southeast of the Project near Sanger. The annual grassland habitat that exists on-site is limited and highly degraded and disturbed by surrounding urban development, trash dumping, repeated disking, a recent grassfire, multiple homeless camps, and nearby road traffic. One inactive mammal den entrance was found off the site but within the BSA within a dry basin. The entrance was unusually large and was accompanied by other oddly sized entrances within 30 feet of the entrance. Each void contained trash and other foreign materials. No diagnostic sign of any large mammal was found in or near the opening.

While there are abundant prey items on-site, site conditions documented within the BSA make it unlikely that San Joaquin Kit fox would be present, even as transient foragers.

Likewise, the American badger, which has similar habitat requirements, is unlikely to occur on any portion of the Project site. Proposed Project activities would have no effect on these species.

The federally endangered and California-threatened San Joaquin kit fox once occurred throughout much of the San Joaquin Valley, but this species favored areas of alkali sink scrub and alkali grassland throughout the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin, as well as areas further west. The low foothills of the Sierra Nevada at the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley are considered at the edge of their natural range. It is not uncommon to find San Joaquin kit fox in developed and cultivated areas; however, the subject site consists of low-quality habitat for this species.

Western Burrowing Owl
A California Species of Special Concern, the western burrowing owl is a small, terrestrial owl that inhabits relatively flat dry open prairies and grasslands where tree and shrub canopies provide minimal cover. This species is found in close association with California ground squirrels, using the abandoned burrows of these squirrels for shelter, roosting, and nesting. Burrowing owls are colonially nesting raptors, and colony size is indicative of habitat quality. It is not uncommon to find burrowing owls in developed and cultivated areas. Although a high abundance of California ground squirrels occupy the subject site, there are little to no abandoned burrows for the western burrowing owl to inhabit.

Therefore, the subject site consists of low-quality habitat for this species.

Swainson’s Hawk
34 The Swainson’s hawk is unlikely to occur at the Project. The most recent record of occurrence in the region was from 2016 on the west side of SR 99, 3.5 miles southwest of the Project. While there is foraging habit on-site, there were no potential Swainson’s hawk nests observed on the site, there were few agricultural trees of a size that would support nesting Swainson’s hawks, and the disturbances and human activity in the area limit the potential for Swainson’s hawks to use the site as a breeding area. Sixteen small mammal burrow complexes were mapped during the reconnaissance survey, but many more active burrows and burrow complexes likely exist on-site. Two red-tailed hawks were observed hunting on the southern half of the site and other raptors may use the site to forage.

The BRE concluded that three special status species, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger and western burrowing owl, could potentially be present at the Project site, but their potential for occurrence, even as transients, is very unlikely. Project activities would have no effect on these species. No potential nests of the Swainson’s hawk were present on the Project site or within the BSA. The Project will result in the removal of on-site agricultural trees, but the loss of these trees will not represent a loss in nesting habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. No special-status wildlife species or diagnostic signs of specialstatus wildlife species were observed on the Project site, and the degraded condition of the site would tend to preclude those species from occurring.

Therefore, the Project is anticipated to have no impact to special-status wildlife species.

However, the Project would be subject to the applicable mitigation measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-1.4, and BIO-2.1. The Project must comply with the MM BIO-1.1, which includes avoidance and minimization measures for special-status species, BIO 1.2 for the avoidance of direct or incidental take of any State or federally listed species, BIO

1.4,regarding construction during nesting season and related precautions, and BIO 2.1 which requires a pre-construction biological survey prior to construction to determine if the Project site supports any special-status species. These measures will reduce Project impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the biological resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated August 12, 2022.

MM BIO-1.1: Construction of a proposed project shall 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 portion 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. Specific 35 mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-1.2: Direct or incidental take of any State or federally listed species shall 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 CDFW 2081 and USFWS Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes shall take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-1.4: 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 shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 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 shall be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer shall be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the Director of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all proposed project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-2.1: A pre‐construction clearance survey, following current CDFW protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine 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 reduce 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 36 in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat-based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As described above, natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, home to special status plant and animal species, of importance in maintaining water quality or sustaining flows, etc.

Examples of natural communities of special concern in the San Joaquin Valley could include open, ruderal/non-native grassland habitat, which is infrequently disturbed, vernal pools and various types of riparian forest. No natural communities of special concern were identified on the subject site.

There are no riparian habitats or any other sensitive natural communities identified by CDFW or the USFWS located on the Project site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over the Clean Water Act (CWA), as provided for by the EPA. The USACE has established specific criteria for the determination of wetlands based upon the presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophilic vegetation. There are no federally protected wetlands or vernal pools that occur within the Project
No State or federally protected wetlands or other water features are located on the subject site. The National Hydrography database (NHD) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows one stream feature, the Braley Canal, and one pond feature near the site. A freshwater pond, identified as PUBFx (USFWS 2020c), corresponds with a dry basin found within the BSA to the east of the site. A large, inundated retention pond occurs directly south of the Project and a dry basin occurs just east of the site. Both these features occur within the BSA. However, both features are manmade and had no 37 hydrologic connection with the Project site. The Project will not impact the Braley Canal during construction or operation. Therefore, impacts to wetlands or water features would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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? Wildlife movement corridors are areas where wildlife species regularly and predictably move during foraging, or during dispersal or migration. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers, and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines. Such geographic and topographic features are absent from the Project site.

Therefore, the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed Project is subject to provisions of the City’s Municipal Code regarding trees on public property (Article 3 of Section 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code), and as proposed does not conflict with any of the existing ordinances. The trees currently on the site are remnant non-native nut trees from the previous agricultural operation and are not considered a biological resource. As a result, no impact would occur related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance In addition, the Project will comply with the policies and goals of the General Plan pertaining to protecting biological resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
38 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?
The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP. Therefore, development of the Project area will not result in any impacts to an adopted HCP or NCCP.

The Project site is located within an area covered by the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). That HCP covers PG&E activities and does not apply to this Project. The subject site nor the immediate vicinity occur in any other habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans pertaining to natural resources within the region. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented in this section are based on a Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum prepared for the Project (QK, 2020b), is included as Appendix C. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A cultural resources records search was conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield for this Project.

The records search covered an area within one half mile of the Project site and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file. The records search indicated that subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources. No cultural resources have been recorded on the property and it is not known if any exist there; however, one cultural resource was identified within a half mile of the proposed Project. The resource identified was a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad line (P-10-003930) that abuts the Project property on its northern boundary. Although part of a historic railroad route, the track is in active use and is not considered a significant cultural resource.

Eight cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the property.

These consisted of searches for potential housing developments, a USDA horticulture field station, and local schools dating from the early 1990s to as recent as 2018.

No other cultural surveys or resources have been recorded within a half mile of the Project. No cultural resources are known within the Project site. No Native American sacred sites or cultural landscapes had been identified within or immediately adjacent to the study area. A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated October 14, 2020 indicates negative results.

It should be noted however, that lack of surface evidence of historical resources does not preclude the subsurface existence of archaeological resources. Furthermore, previously unknown or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during Project construction. However, during excavation activities, there is always the potential to discover archaeological or historical cultural resources. In the event cultural resources are found, construction will halt, and a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources specialist will be contacted and will make recommendations to the City. With implementation of the Project Specific Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL 2, impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate the cultural resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

CUL-1.1: 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 shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to the 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.

CUL-1.2: Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. The evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development.

CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed. • If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation 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 prehistoric archaeological 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.
• If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation 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. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist within the Project site. There is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by vegetation, fill, or other historic activities, leaving no surface evidence.

Therefore, with implementation of the Project Specific Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, and CUL 2, impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1.1 MM CUL 1-2 and CUL 2.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Previously unknown or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during Project construction. Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface resources is minimal.

Although cultural resources aren’t anticipated onsite, like most Projects in the state, the possibility exists that these resources could be found during construction; therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the Project, MM CUL- 3 will address archaeological resources and human remains will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological or human remains be encountered during Project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed Project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic and archaeological resources, or human remains.

In conclusion, with implementation of MM CUL-3 incorporated, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate the cultural resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

CUL-3: 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 landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Analysis (VRPA, 2021a) prepared for the Project (Appendix A) and available energy resource consumption data.

DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

New buildings and landscapes are much more energy efficient and water efficient than the development that has been built over the past decades and will require much less energy. The 2020 Title 24 standards makes progress toward achieving net zero energy use through requirements for on‐site renewable generation for most projects. The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards and other applicable City development standards.

Analysis
Energy demand during the construction phase would result from the transportation of materials, construction equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Construction equipment includes rubber-tired dozers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, scrapers, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, welders, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, and air compressors. The Project would comply with the SJVAPCD requirements regarding the use of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Energy saving strategies will be implemented where possible to further reduce the Project’s energy consumption, during the construction phase. Strategies being implemented include those recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that may reduce both the Project’s energy consumption, including diesel antiidling measures, light-duty vehicle technology, usage of alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends and ethanol, and heavy-duty vehicle design measures to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, as outlined in the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the Project includes recommendations to reduce energy consumption by shutting down equipment when not in use for extended periods, limiting the usage of construction equipment to eight cumulative hours per day, usage of electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment, and encouragement of employees to carpool to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.

The proposed Project includes the construction of 199 single-family residential units and an approximate 2-acre park site on approximately 40-acres. The Project also includes designated outlots for City street dedication and trail dedication.

The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the size of the proposed buildings, the energy consumption of associated appliances and technology, and outdoor lighting. Other major sources of proposed Project energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during Project construction and operation, and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction.

The proposed Project will be consistent with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan related to energy conservation and reduction measures, as shown in Table 6-

1. Table 6-1
City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Objective RC‐8 Reduce the
consumption of non‐ renewable
energy resources by requiring and
encouraging conservation measures and
the use of alternative energy sources.

Consistent. The Project will
comply with Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards and
CalGreen Code requirements
for solar ready roofs, electric
vehicle charging, and water
conservation. The 2019
Building Efficiency Standards
are the current regulations and
went into effect on January 1,
2020. One of the notable
changes in the 2019 Title 24
Standards includes the solar
photovoltaic systems
requirement for new low‐rise
residential homes.

Policy RC‐8‐a Existing Standards and
Programs. Continue existing beneficial
energy conservation programs, including
adhering to the California Energy Code in
new construction and major renovations.

Consistent. The Project will
comply with all applicable
energy standards.

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

Consistent. The Project will
comply with the Title 24 energy
standards in effect at the time
building permits are processed
for approval.

Source: City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2014.

There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities. All construction equipment shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies. In particular, construction and operations of the Project would be subject to applicable CARB regulations (Airborne Toxic Control Measure), California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requirements (e.g. Lighting Power Density requirements). In addition, the Project would follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate. Enforcement of these regulations, requirements, and practices would thereby minimize or eliminate unnecessary or wasteful consumption of energy. In addition, the Project would be served by PG&E and would not require extensions of energy infrastructure or new energy supplies. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed Project, and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through State-wide and local measures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage, as shown in Table 6-1. The Project will comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CalGreen Code requirements for solar ready roofs, electric vehicle charging, and water conservation. The Project also includes the installation of solar panels on each home, to offset the use of electricity that would be generated by non-renewable energy sources such as coal-fired power plants.

PG&E is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the State-wide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E is expected to achieve at least a 50% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% by 2045.

Other State-wide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the State-wide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal.

PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project. The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. In conclusion, energy impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the Project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

DISCUSSION
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.

There are no known active earthquake faults within city limits and that there are no areas within the city limits identified within any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. GP PEIR indicates that projects within the Planning Area would be designed to withstand strong ground shaking because all built projects are required to comply with the CBC to minimize the potential effects of ground shaking and other seismic activity. To reduce groundshaking impacts, the approved General Plan also includes Objective NS‐2 and policies NS‐2‐a through NS‐2‐d, and the City of Fresno Municipal Code includes Section 11‐101 The nearest active fault is located near Independence, CA, approximately 100 miles to the east along the Fresno County-Inyo County boundary. The principal potential earthquake hazard for Fresno is ground shaking, which could cause damage to buildings and infrastructure elements such as bridges and pipes. The distance between Fresno and major faults minimizes this potential hazard. However, the City of Fresno is classified by the State as being in a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on the soils underlying the specific location being categorized and that location’s proximity to the nearest known fault lines. No adverse environmental effects related to seismology or known fault lines are expected as a result of this Project.

Because no active faults occur within the Planning Area, impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
According to the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project site is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. However, the GP PEIR indicates that projects within the Planning Area would be designed to withstand strong ground shaking because all built projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) to minimize the potential effects of ground shaking and other seismic activity. CBC covers many aspects of building design and construction as a guide to protect public health and safety. To reduce ground-shaking impacts, the approved General Plan also includes Objective NS‐2 and policies NS‐2‐a through NS‐2‐d, and the City of Fresno Municipal Code includes Section 11‐101.

With the implementation of the above-referenced objective and policies as well as adherence to the Municipal Code and other applicable regulations, development in accordance with the approved General Plan would reduce potential seismic ground shaking impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. Compliance with local and State building codes would ensure Project structures and personnel present during the construction would not be exposed to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, implementation of these building code requirements and local agency enforcement would reduce impacts from ground shaking to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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.

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.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
iv. Landslides?
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e., cut and fill). The Project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide in the Project site is essentially non-existent. Because the Project is within an area with relatively flat topography, the Project will not have any environmental impacts relating to landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The Project site is within an area of low seismic activity; however, the Project will be required to implement seismic protection consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Minimal soil will be removed from the Project site during construction, as the site is relatively flat and has been previously impacted by grading from previous site use.

Development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Construction would also involve the use of water that may cause further soil disturbance. Such impacts would be addressed through compliance with regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Namely, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion.

Because Project impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction and required BMPs would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the Project impacts will remain less than significant with applicable measures incorporated as required by the City of Fresno municipal code.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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? See discussion under VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (a)(i) through (a)(iv) and (b). The Project is required to comply with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno. Since there are no known faults within the immediate area, ground rupture from surface faulting should not be a potential problem. Seiche and landslides are not hazards in the area. Liquefaction potential (sudden loss of shear strength in a saturated, cohesionless soil) should be low since groundwater occurs below 60 feet. Lastly, deep subsidence problems may be low to moderate according to the conclusions of the Five County Seismic Safety Element. However, there are no known occurrences of structural or architectural damage due to deep subsidence in the Fresno area.

As previously discussed, the site soils are considered stable in that there is not a potential of on or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse. As discussed in VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (a)(iii), the Project site soils have a low overall potential for significant liquefaction to occur at the site. All structures would be subject to all applicable construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. In conclusion, All structures would be subject to all IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics.

Development of the property requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
See discussion under VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (a)(i) through (a)(iv),(b) and (c).

Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay, which absorb water and cause the soil to increase in volume. There are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the site. The existing topography is relatively flat with no apparent unique or significant landforms such as vernal pools. Development of the property requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno. A civil engineer or soils engineer registered in this state shall complete a Soils Investigation and Evaluation Report. The investigation will address the detail of the configuration, location, type of loading of the proposed structures and drainage plan. The report shall provide detailed recommendation for foundations, drainage, and other items. The preparation of the Soils Investigation and Evaluation Report is an existing standard and will be completed as a part of the Project.

The proposed Project would not result in any expansive soils environmental impacts therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed Project does not include the development or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as the Project would connect to the City’s existing sewer system. Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
There are no known paleontological resources that exist within the Project site.

Nevertheless, previously unknown paleontological resources could be disturbed during future development construction. Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the Project, the measures within the Project Specific Mitigation and Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022 addressing paleontological resources will be employed to guarantee that should animal fossil material be encountered during Project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed Project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of paleontological resources. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1, Project impacts related to paleontological resources will be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the geologic resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

GEO-6.1: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist 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. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation 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 paleontological/geological resources 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.
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance.

If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation 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.

In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented in this section are based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment prepared for the Project (VRPA, 2021a), attached as Appendix A.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The City of Fresno adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan in 2014 that includes procedures for certain qualified projects to demonstrate consistency with plan and use the streamlining provisions allowed under CEQA. In addition to the plan consistency analysis, a quantitative analysis was prepared showing that reductions from Business As Usual (BAU) emissions would exceed the 21.7 percent required by 2020 to show consistency with State reduction targets. The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land‐ use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis (SJVAPCD 2009b). Under the SJVAPCD guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA;
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program;
• Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; and
• Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”
The 29 percent GHG reduction level is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession. In addition, the State has reported that the 2016 greenhouse gas inventory was below the 2020 target for the first time (ARB 2018b). Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that California is on track to achieve the 2020 target (VRPA, 2021a). First occupancy at the Project site is expected to occur in 2022, which is the year after the AB 32 target year. It is unknown when future development will occur as a result of the Project approval, but it is expected to take several years depending on market conditions. Until a new threshold or BPS are identified for projects constructed after 2020, significance is based on making continued progress toward the AB 32 2030 goal. For the proposed future development as a result of the Project approval, there will be a less than significant impact on climate change because the facts (set forth in this section) demonstrate that the Project will work to meet the AB 32 targeted 29% GHG reductions.

The ARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan Update on December 14, 2017. The plan provides the State’s strategy to achieve the SB 32 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels. The plan includes existing and new measures that when implemented are expected to achieve the SB 32 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan achieves substantial reductions beyond 2020 through continued implementation of existing regulations. Other regulations will be adopted to implement recently enacted legislation including SB 350, which requires an increase in renewable energy from 33 percent to 50 percent and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030. The Legislature extended the Cap‐and‐Trade Program through 2030. Cap‐ and‐Trade provides a mechanism to make up shortfalls in other strategies if they occur.

In addition, the strategy relies on reductions achieved in implementing the ARB Short‐ Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy to reduce pollutants not previously controlled for climate change such as black carbon, CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons (VRPA, 2021a).

The SJVAPCD has not adopted a threshold for GHG impacts so they have used the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operation emissions. Though the Project is under SJVAPCD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold provides some perspective on the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 8-1 below shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model.

Table 8-1
Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 8-1 above shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by the Project as determined by the CalEEMod model, which is approximately 80 percent less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD. The primary source of GHG sources would come from trucks and other vehicles within the Project area. The resulting permanent GHG increases related to Project operations would be within the GHG increases analyzed in the PEIR since the Project meets the applicable zoning requirements. There would be no increase in severity to the GHG Project Operational Emissions Per Year(plus
amortized construction emissions) 2702.29 MT/yr
CO2e
Source: CalEEMod
Summary Report
impacts, and implementation of the Project will not result in Project-specific or site-specific significant adverse impacts from GHG emissions. In conclusion, the proposed Project would not result in greenhouse gas emission environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, impacts would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City of Fresno adopted its Recirculated GHG Reduction Plan Update (2021) as part of the General Plan Update. The Project’s consistency with applicable GHG policies from the Recirculated GHG Reduction Plan policies is assessed below.

The Project is also assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans.

This would be achieved with an assessment of the Project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2008 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

City of Fresno Recirculated GHG Plan Update
The Recirculated GHG Plan Update includes procedures to use when assessing the impacts of Project’s requiring a general plan amendment. The following requirements apply.

1. Review General Plan policies listed in the Recirculated GHG Reduction Plan Update to identify those that apply to the project and prepare a consistency analysis for compliance with the applicable policies.

2. Ensure project is consistent with the City’s Development Code as it relates to complete streets and design standards for multi‐family projects.

3. Prepare a GHG technical study to quantify project emissions and emission reductions through compliance with regulations and project design features.

In summary, the Project would be required to incorporate a number of features that would minimize GHG emissions as required by the City’s existing plans and policies. These features are consistent with project‐level strategies identified by the ARB’s Scoping Plan and the City of Fresno Recirculated GHG Reduction Plan Update (2021).

Consistency with California’s Post‐2020 Targets
The State’s executive branch adopted several Executive Orders related to GHG emissions. Executive Orders S‐3‐05 and B‐30‐15 are two examples. Executive Order S‐3‐05 sets goals to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal of Executive Order S‐3‐05 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32. The Project, as analyzed above, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S‐3‐05. Executive Order B‐30‐15 establishes an interim goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Consistency with SB 32
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S‐3‐05 and SB 32. The Project is required to comply with the SB 32 strategy and is not expected to conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05.

As discussed above, the proposed Project will not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. There would be a less than significant impact as the Project would adhere to standards as identified in the Fresno General Plan. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a Project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
Project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project
site?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Pursuant to the Fresno General Plan, hazardous materials are defined as those that no longer have practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal.

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are classified according to four properties: toxic (causes human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), and reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gases). Hazardous materials have been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural, and industrial applications and, to a limited extent, in residential areas.

Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes would likely be transported to and from the Project site during the future construction phase of the proposed Project.

Construction would most likely involve the use of some standard hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, grease, solvents, adhesives, paints, and other petroleum-based products, although these materials are commonly used during construction activities and would not be disposed of on the Project site.

Workers would likely be trained to properly identify and handle all hazardous materials, following OSHA/CALOSHA regulations. Hazardous waste would be either recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. Any hazardous waste or debris that is generated during construction of future buildout as a result of the Project would be collected and transported away from the site and disposed of at an approved off-site landfill or other such facility. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through the use of portable toilets, which would be located at reasonably accessible on-site locations. Hazardous materials such as paint, bleach, water treatment chemicals, gasoline, oil, etc., may be used during construction. These materials would be required to be stored in appropriate storage locations and containers in the manner specified by the manufacturer and disposed of in accordance with local, federal, and State regulations. no significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during construction or operation of the new residential development would occur.

The closest sensitive receptor (school facility) is located adjacent to the southwest of the Project site. However, the use of hazardous materials will be limited in quantities and duration, and if spilled, would be localized. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials substances. The transport use and storage of hazardous materials would be required to comply with all applicable State and federal regulations, such as requirements that spills would be cleaned immediately, and all wastes and spills control materials would be properly disposed of at approved disposal facilities.

However, it is noted that residential construction generally uses fewer hazardous chemicals or use chemicals in relatively small quantities and concentrations as compared to commercial or industrial uses. In addition, once any future development is completed, the chemicals used would include minor quantities of pesticides/ rodenticides, fertilizers, paints, detergents, and other cleaners. Once constructed, the use of such materials such as paint, bleach, etc., are considered common for residential developments and would be unlikely for such materials to be stored or used in such quantities that would be considered a significant hazard.

Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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?
See discussion under IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (a).

As noted in VII GEOLOGY AND SOILS(b), the Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP under the NPDES permit for construction sites over one acre. The SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution from the Project that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and requires that BMPs be implemented to prevent contamination at the source. By implementing BMPs during construction activities, accidental spills of hazardous materials would be contained, and soil and groundwater contamination would be minimized or prevented. While there are no known existing hazardous material conditions on the site and the Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, portions of the Project site have been utilized for agricultural purposes, which may have utilized pesticides in association with agricultural operations and cultivation. However, dust control measures during construction activities would reduce potential pesticide exposure to workers. Once constructed, there would be minimal to no exposed soil that might create dust or expose residents to pesticide contamination.

Additionally, a review of Fresno County Environmental Health Services indicates there are no records for the site. The review of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Geotracker database available via the RWQCB Internet Website indicated that no LUST sites, land disposal sites, or military sites are listed for the subject site. Review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no sites including State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, or military or school evaluation sites are listed for the subject site.

Review of State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM, formerly DOGGR) Online Mapping System (DOMS) indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil wells are located on or adjacent to the subject site.

If during the construction phase of the Project there is a use of hazardous materials, the safe processing and storage of hazardous materials consistent with the California Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code will be required. To reduce potential impacts regarding transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in the City, the Policies NS-4-a through NS-4-I will be applied and followed.

The proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, as mentioned previously in subsection a) above, the residential Project would not routinely transport, use, dispose, or discharge hazardous materials into the environment. The Project will not result in any hazards and hazardous material impacts beyond those analyzed in analyzed in GP PEIR SCH No. 20190500005. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
See discussion under IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (a) and (b).

The Project site is adjacent to the Elizabeth Terronez Middle School. Construction activities for the proposed Project could result in the temporary use of hazardous materials and or substances, such as lubricant and diesel fuel during construction.

Exhaust from construction and related activities are expected to be minimal and not significant. All construction related activities as a result of the proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal laws related to emissions of hazardous materials and substances. All construction-related activities as a result of the proposed Project would be subject to local, State, and federal laws related to emissions of hazardous materials and substances. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? See discussion under IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (b). There are no known existing hazardous material conditions on the property and the property is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Project itself will not generate or use hazardous materials in a manner outside health department requirements. Review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no sites including State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, or military or school evaluation sites are listed for the subject site or adjacent properties. Additionally, no Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a one-mile radius of the Project site.

To reduce potential impacts regarding transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in the City, the Policies NS-4-a through NS-4-I will be applied and followed.

It is not anticipated that there are no known underground storage tanks or pipelines located on the Project site that contain hazardous materials, however, any underground storage tanks or pipelines will be removed in accordance with removal standards of Fresno County Department of Public Health. The disturbance of such items during construction activities is unlikely. Therefore, because the Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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 site?
The Project is located over 10 miles east of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, and over 6 miles south of the Fresno Yosemite Airport. The Project is not within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or within two miles of a public airport.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City’s Police and Fire Departments are tasked with all local emergency response efforts. In addition, the City’s full-time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are upto-date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. In addition, the Project site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs.

All Project plans submitted to the City will be reviewed incompliance with federal, State and local regulations related to emergency access. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Currently, the Project incorporates an access drive that will be constructed to the west of the Project site to allow access from S. Willow Avenue and a stubbed access point will be constructed to the east of the Project site to facilitate connections to future subdivisions. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on emergency evacuation.. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The General Plan Update identified areas within the City limits as largely being categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is attributed to urbanization. The General Plan further indicated that small areas along the San Joaquin River Bluff area in northern Fresno are prone to wildfires due to relatively steep terrain/vegetation, and these areas are classified as high fire hazard areas.

However, the Project site is not located within this area and is proposed on relatively flat surface.

State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are designated areas where Cal Fire is the primary emergency response agency responsible for fire suppression and prevention. According to the 2021 Cal Fire State Responsibility Area Viewer Map, the Project area is not in a designated State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The Project area is entirely located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and has been designated as Non-Wildland.

The land surrounding the Project site is primarily vacant land and is not considered to be wildlands. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the Project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

X
i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to Project
inundation?
X

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Adverse groundwater conditions of limited supply and compromised quality have been well documented by planning, environmental impact report and technical studies over the past 20 years including the GP PEIR No. 20190500005 for the Fresno General Plan, the GP MEIR 10130 for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, Final EIR No.10100, Final EIR No.10117 and Final EIR No. SCH 95022029 (Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan), et al. These conditions include water quality degradation due to contamination from 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene-dibromide (EDB), trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCE), nitrate, and from naturally occurring arsenic, iron, manganese, and radon concentrations; low water well yields in some parts of the City; limited aquifer storage capacity from overutilization; limited recharge activities; and, intensive urban or semi-urban development occurring up-gradient from the Fresno Metropolitan Area.

In order to be compliant with State regulations, the Project is required to comply with State regulations adopted to reduce groundwater degradation. Construction activities including grading could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after Project construction. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of soil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters. As noted in Section VII Geology and Soils, development as a result of the proposed Project will be required to prepare a site-specific SWPPP as required by the RWQCB. The SWPPP is required to be approved by the RWQCB prior to construction that identifies project-specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion.

In addition, prior to the commencement of construction activities, the Project proponent would be required to adhere to the requirements of the City Grading Code. This includes implementation of various measures designed to prevent erosion and control drainage onsite, thereby further preventing the potential sedimentation and subsequent degradation of stormwater. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Fresno is one of the largest cities in the United States that still maintains a significant reliance on groundwater as part of its public water supply portfolio.

Surface water treatment and distribution has been implemented in the northeastern part of the city since 2004 and in the southeastern part of the city in 2018, but the city is still subject to an EPA Sole Source Aquifer designation. While the aquifer underlying Fresno typically exceeds a depth of 300-feet and is capacious enough to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water to the metropolitan area well into the twenty-first century, groundwater degradation, increasingly stringent water quality regulations, and an historic trend of high consumptive use of water on a per capita basis (currently 205 gallons per day per capita), have resulted in a general decline in aquifer levels, increased cost to provide potable water, and localized water supply limitations.

The City’s groundwater aquifer has been documented by the State Department of Water Resources (Bulletin 118 - Interim Update 2016) to be critically over-drafted and has been designated a high-priority basin for corrective action through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

The City of Fresno is actively addressing these issues through citywide metering and updating water use targets and the water shortage contingency plan in the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (City of Fresno, 2020).

The City has adopted the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan.

The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. City water wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment, and distribution systems have been expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands and respond to groundwater quality challenges.

In response to the need for a comprehensive long-range water supply and distribution strategy, the Fresno General Plan recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City 2020 UWMP. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft, and provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities.

The 2020 City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Figures ES-3 through ES-5 (incorporated by reference), illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals the city is implementing strategies including:
• Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of Fresno-Yosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;
• Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigation District for treatment at the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and construct a new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and • Recycle wastewater at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC6-d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.

The use of groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily as has historically been the case. The 2020 UWMP shows that groundwater pumped by the City has decreased from approximately 148,006 AF/year in 2008 to approximately 55,000 AF/year in 2020.

The projected total estimated groundwater yield for 2045 is approximately 159,820 AF/year, inclusive of intentional recharge. In order to meet future demand projections, the City is planning to rely on expanding their delivery and treatment of surface water supplies and groundwater recharge activities. .

Project construction would add additional impervious surfaces to the Project site; however, various areas of the Project site would remain largely pervious, which would allow infiltration to underlying groundwater. For example, the Project includes ample landscaping areas that would remain pervious. The areas would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge following the construction of the Project.

Furthermore, the Project is not anticipated to significantly affect groundwater quality because sufficient stormwater infrastructure would be constructed as part of the Project to detain and filter stormwater runoff and prevent long-term water quality degradation. Therefore, Project construction and operation would not substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supply or quality.

The Urban Water Management Plan states that in 2020, the City’s water use averaged 198 GPCD based on 121,993 AF of water production and a service area population of 550,217. The City is far below its 2020 daily per capita water use target of 247 GPCD due to the extensive conservation efforts implemented by the City in the past decade (City of Fresno, 2020).

The proposed Project consists of 199 dwelling units, and the average household size in Fresno is 3.07 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), the Project will house approximately 611 people. The proposed Project would result in estimated water demand of 120,978 gallons per day (611 people x 198 gallons/day = 120,978 gallons/day – 135.53-acre-foot per year).

The Project will not conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management or impede sustainable groundwater management plans.

Implementation of the City of Fresno General Plan policies will ensure that the City has a reliable, long-range source of water through the implementation of measures, standards, incentives, and capital investments to promote water conservation and supply.

The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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? The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the following: topography, the amount and intensity of precipitation, the amount of evaporation that occurs in the watershed and the amount of precipitation and water that infiltrates to the groundwater. The proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, which would have the potential to result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on or offsite, and a temporary retention basin will located on the Project site. The disturbance of soils onsite during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. In addition, the placement of permanent structures onsite could affect drainage in the long-term. Impacts from construction and operation are discussed below.

The Project site is generally flat. The Project site does not have a stream or river and is not near another body of water. The Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite.

As discussed in VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (b), above, potential impacts on water quality arising from erosion and sedimentation are expected to be localized and temporary during construction. Construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts as a result of soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementation of an SWPPP and BMPs required by NPDES.

No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site, and therefore, the proposed Project would not change the course of any such drainages.

The Project has been designed in a way that does not require a stormwater retention basin, and stormwater would drain into the existing City stormwater system. The Project will be constructed to meet City standards related to stormwater and would not degrade surface or groundwater quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

Once constructed, the Project would develop areas of impervious surfaces that would reduce the rate of percolation at the site or concentrate, but areas of open space will allow for the percolation of stormwater to recharge the aquifer or the water would be directed into the City’s existing stormwater sewer system. The Project would comply with applicable City development standards and codes.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site.. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
See also response (c(i)), above. No drainages or other water bodies are present on the Project site, and therefore, the development of the site would not change the course of any such drainages that may potentially result in on or offsite flooding. Water would be used during the temporary construction phase of the proposed Project (i.e., for dust suppression). However, any water used for dust control would be mechanically and precisely applied and would generally infiltrate or evaporate prior to running off.

The BMPs associated with the SWPPP would prevent flooding onsite and offsite. While the project would permanently increase the impervious surface area, the Project would maintain the overall on-site drainage patterns and continue to direct surface water to catch basins that flow into the existing storm drains. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant would be required to provide a stormwater improvement plan to the City to ensure that the stormwater system would be capable of handling a 25-year storm and that the drainage facilities conform to City requirements. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs if the City determines that the City’s storm drain system or storm drain pumping capacity requires expansion or modification as a result of the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite and impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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?
See responses (c(i)-c(ii)), above. The Project will comply with all applicable State and City codes and regulations. The storm drainage plan will be supported by engineering calculations to ensure that the Project does not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

As discussed above, the proposed Project would result in a minimal increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially increase runoff from the site. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with City standards during construction and operation, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Please see responses (c(i)-c(iii)), above. The rate and amount of surface runoff are determined by multiple factors, including the following: topography, the amount and intensity of precipitation, the amount of evaporation that occurs in the watershed, and the amount of precipitation and water that infiltrates the groundwater.

The proposed Project is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the subject site is located in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard designation (500 year flood zone); however, it does not necessitate floodplain management action. As discussed above, the existing drainage pattern of the site and area would be affected by project development.

However, the Project will connect to the existing stormwater sewer system, and therefore potential impacts resulting from the impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
Please see responses (c(i)-c(iv)), above
The Project site is not located near the ocean or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.). Additionally, there is no body of water within the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project’s inland location makes the risk of tsunami highly unlikely. The probability of a seiche occurring in the City of Fresno is considered negligible. Furthermore, given the geologic context at the proposed Project site and the absence of pollutants, if such an event were to occur, the likelihood of it exposing Project structures or people to a significant risk is considered low.

As noted previously, the Project is in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard designation. The closest dams are the Friant Dam, approximately 19 miles north, and the Pine Flat dam, approximately 23 miles northeast of the Project. In the case of dam failure, flood waters would not reach the City for hours. The extremely low probability of dam failure, large volume of flood water available for dilution of potential pollutants, and the relatively long warning period to prepare, indicate that inundation due to dam failure would not have a significant impact on the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
No mitigation is required .
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
See response b. above. As noted, the proposed Project is anticipated to use approximately 16 million gallons of water annually. The Project will obtain water by connecting to City utility services.

Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and the applicable policies of the GP PEIR, will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the Project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes. City of Fresno, Water Division has reviewed the Project for compliance with water quality and groundwater management. Further, the Fresno General Plan policies and initiatives ensure water conservation. The GP PEIR also evaluated the need for additional water conveyance infrastructure (e.g., new water wells) and the increase in additional water demand with the approval of proposed development in the City.

As noted above, the proposed project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements. As a result, the proposed project would not include any other waste discharges that could conflict with the Basin Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The Project is located within an area primarily consisting of several large vacant/ residential parcels located outside of the City of Fresno City Limits as a County Island. Areas to the south of the Project site are large residential parcels, and areas to the east and west are vacant while the subject parcel is undeveloped. The City’s General Plan designates the annexation area as Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential. More specifically, the Project site for the proposed subdivision is planned for Medium Density Residential land uses. The proposed single-family residential development is allowed within this land use designation, and the Project does not exceed the maximum density, therefore the Project is not dividing an established community. The Project is not being built in a pre-existing community area, would not create any physical barrier between an established community. Therefore there are no impacts.

Mitigation Measure(s)
No mitigation is required.
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?
The Project proposes to construct a 199-unit single-family residential development with approval of the associated Annexation, Pre-zone, and Tentative Tract Map.

The 38.72 acre Project site will be annexed into the City to the Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential land use designations. This annexation boundary was determined by Fresno LAFCO. Approval of the prezoning and General Plan amendment would ensure that the zoning designation is consistent with the land use designation for the Project site. Upon approval of the requested entitlements, the proposed Project would be developed in compliance with the General Plan and be consistent with Medium Density and Medium High Density residential standards. The discretionary approvals required for the Project will include reviews and comments from responsible agencies, and from several City departments to ensure compliance with all applicable, plans, policies, regulations, standards, and conditions of approval. With approval of the discretionary actions, the Project will be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and will comply with local and State building codes and requirements. Therefore there would be no impacts.

Mitigation Measure(s)
No mitigation is required
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas. The subject site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery According to the California Department of Conservation - Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) website, there are no active, inactive, or capped oil wells located within the Project site, and it is not within a DOGGR-recognized oilfield. Additionally, the Fresno General Plan has not designated the Project site to be located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The subject site is not designated by the General Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Consequently, it will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. This is a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the Project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a Project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
Project expose people residing or
working in the Project site to
excessive noise levels?
X

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented in this section are based on a Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared for the Project (Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc, 2021) attached as Appendix D.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
The 2014 City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element provides noise level criteria for land use compatibility for both transportation and non‐transportation noise sources. The General Plan sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10-dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.).

The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.

Implementing Policy NS‐1‐h of the Noise Element requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior transportation noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

Residential construction methods will comply with current building code requirements and reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior standard by the proposed Project.

The Project site is located on the eastside of South Willow Avenue and the existing San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) track runs along the northern border of the project. The Project proposes the construction of 199 single-family residential lots and a neighborhood park. Existing land uses in the immediate project vicinity include residential and agricultural to the north, residential to the south, agricultural to the west, and undeveloped land to the east.

Construction Noise
Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short duration, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed. During the construction phase of the Project, noise generating activities will be present, however, it will be temporary in nature and any machinery used as a part of the construction of the Project will be muffled. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Impacts are anticipated to less than significant.

Traffic Noise Exposure
The FHWA Model was used with future traffic data to predict future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses of the development.

The predicted future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the proposed development are summarized in Table 13-1.

Table 13-1
Predicted Future Exterior S. Willow Avenue
Traffic Noise Levels at the Project Site
Location Receiver Description
Distanc
e(ft)1
Offset
(dB)2
Future Exterior
DNL (dB)
Park Neighborhood park 22
0 55
Residences
(Lots 1-4, 189-199)
Backyards
First-floor building
facades Upper-floor
building facades
60 70
70 +2
64 63
65 1 Distances scaled from center of park and other said locations to roadway centerline using the provided site plans.
2 An offset of +2 dB was applied at upper-floors for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated locations.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
The Fresno General Plan does not currently have adopted noise level criteria for park uses affected by transportation noise sources. However, the Fresno Municipal Code establishes a land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL or less as satisfactory for new proposed park uses. As indicated in Table 13-1, the predicted future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise level of 55 dB DNL at the proposed park would satisfy the Municipal Code land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL for park uses.

The Project site plans indicate that 6-foot-tall block walls (traffic noise barriers) are proposed to be constructed along residential lots adjacent to S. Willow Avenue. The results presented in Table 13-2 below contain predicted future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the nearest residential ground level locations (i.e., backyards and first-floor building facades) with noise attenuation that would be provided by the proposed 6-foot-tall walls. Because elevated upper-floor building facades of the residences constructed adjacent to S. Willow Avenue would not receive shielding from the proposed 6-foot-tall walls, attenuated noise levels for those locations were not included in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2
Predicted Future Exterior Willow Avenue
Traffic Noise Levels with Proposed 6 foot Noise Barriers Location Receiver Description Future Exterior DNL w/Barriers (dB)1
Residences Backyards 58
(Lots 1-4, 189-199) First-floor building facades 57
1 Predicted noise levels include consideration of shielding provided by proposed 6-foot-tall noise barriers at thelocations illustrated on Figure 2. A complete listing of inputs and elevation assumptions used for the barrier insertion loss evaluation are provided as Appendix H.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
As indicated in Table 13-2, future exterior S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the backyards proposed nearest to the roadway are predicted to satisfy the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard applicable to residential uses. The predicted exterior compliance above includes consideration of the shielding that would be provided by the construction of 6-foottall noise barriers (block wall) along S. Willow Avenue, as proposed.

Because future traffic noise level exposure is predicted to satisfy applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code exterior noise level criteria at the proposed development, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Interior Traffic Noise Exposure
After construction of the proposed 6-foot-tall traffic noise barriers (block walls) at the locations shown on Figure 2 of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise level exposure is predicted to be approximately 57 dB DNL at the nearest first-floor residential building facades. Due to reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions, and lack of shielding provided by the proposed walls, noise levels at the upper-floor building facades of those residences are predicted to approach 65 dB DNL. The Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code establish an interior noise level standard of 45 dB Leq within residential interior areas for transportation noise sources. In addition, Policy NS-1- h of the General Plan requires compliance with a State Building Code requirement of 45 dB DNL within the interior areas of new residential uses. To satisfy the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level limits of 45 dB DNL/Leq, minimum noise reductions of 12 and 20 dB would be needed for compliance within the first- and upper-floor interior areas (respectively) of residences constructed nearest to S. Willow Avenue.

Standard building construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weatherstripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), typically results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. This level of noise reduction would be adequate to reduce future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels within all levels of residences in this development to 45 dB DNL/Leq or less, which result in satisfaction of the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level criteria cited above. As a result, consideration of additional building facade construction improvements for future traffic noise would not be warranted for the residential buildings of the development provided that mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) is included to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for additional acoustical isolation. Based on the analysis provided above, this is impact is identified as being less than significant.

Exterior Railroad Noise Exposure
As mentioned previously, BAC ambient noise measurement site N-1 was specifically selected to be representative of the existing ambient noise level environment associated with SJVR operations at the project site. According to the data from the 72-hour ambient noise monitoring effort, railroad activity adjacent to the project site consisted of approximately two daily railroad passersby (evenly distributed between daytime and nighttime hours). The noise generation for individual train passbys varies depending on train length, speed, warning horn usage, track condition and number of locomotives. From the results of the longterm railroad noise survey conducted at site N-1, it was determined that the existing railroad noise exposure adjacent to the project site is approximately 61 dB DNL at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the track. The measured noise levels at site N-1 included noise generated from locomotives, rail cars, warning horns, and bells from a nearby at-grade crossing at S. Willow Avenue.

The degree by which rail activity will increase on the SJVR track adjacent the project site is difficult to predict. Ultimately, daily rail activity is limited by the capacity of the track. As such, it is unlikely that rail activity adjacent to the project site would increase by more than 50% along this track in the future. A 50% increase in activity corresponds to a 2 dB increase in noise exposure.

Conservatively assuming a 2 dB increase over existing levels, future railroad noise levels were projected at the proposed development. The results of those projections are summarized in Table 13-3.

Table 13-3
Predicted Future Exterior SJVR Railroad Noise Levels at the Project Site The data in Table 13-3 above contains predicted future railroad noise levels at the proposed development. However, the project site plans indicate that an 8-foot-tall block wall (railroad noise barrier) is proposed to be constructed along northern end of the project area adjacent to the SJVR track. The following results presented in Table 13-4 contain predicted future railroad noise levels at the nearest residential ground level locations (i.e., backyards and first-floor building facades) with consideration of the noise attenuation that would be provided by the proposed 8- foot-tall wall, which is calculated to provide approximately 5 to 7 dB of railroad noise attenuation at those locations. Because elevated upper-floor building facades of the residences constructed adjacent to the SJVR track would not receive shielding from the proposed 8-foot-tall wall, attenuated noise levels for those locations were not included in Table 13-4.

Table 13-4
Predicted Future Exterior SJVR Railroad Noise Levels with Proposed 8’ Noise Barrier1
Location Receiver Description Future Exterior DNL w/Barrier (dB)2 Park Neighborhood park 51
Residence Backyard 46
(Lot 103) First-floor building facade 46
Residences Backyards 42
(Lots 104-115) First-floor building facades 50
Residence Backyard 54
Location Receiver Description (ft)1 (dB)2 DNL (dB)3
Park Neighborhood park 160 55
Residence
(Lot 103)
Backyard
First-floor building facade
Upper-floor building facades
150
145
145
-5
+2
51 56
58 Residences
(Lots 104-115)
Backyards
First-floor building facades
Upper-floor building facades
210
160
160
-7
+2
47 55
57 Residence
(Lot 74)
Backyard
First-floor building facade
Upper-floor building facades
80 75
75 +2
60 60
62 1 Distances scaled from center of park and other said locations to center of track using the provided site plans. 2 An offset of +2 dB was applied at upper-floors for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated locations.

Negative offsets applied to account for reduced view of track and/or intervening proposed building shielding. 3 Predicted future railroad noise levels based on a reference noise level of 63 dB DNL at 50 feet, which includes a +2 dB increase relative to measured ambient conditions to account for a 50% increase in future operations.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
(Lot 74) First-floor building facade 53
1 Location of proposed railroad noise barrier is illustrated on Figure 2. 2 Predicted noise levels include consideration of shielding provided by proposed 8-foot-tall noise barrier at the location illustrated on Figure 2, which is calculated to provide approximately 5-7 dB of attenuation at the receivers above (dependent upon on distance to barrier).

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
As noted previously, the Fresno Municipal Code establishes a land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL or less as satisfactory for new proposed park uses. As indicated in Table 13-4, the predicted future railroad noise level of 51 dB DNL at the proposed park would satisfy the Municipal Code land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL for park uses. The predicted compliance at the park includes consideration of attenuation that would be provided by the construction of an 8-foottall noise barrier adjacent to the SJVR track, as proposed.

The Table 13-4 data indicate that future exterior railroad noise level exposure at the backyards proposed nearest to the track is predicted to satisfy the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard applicable to residential uses. The predicted exterior compliance at the nearest backyards includes consideration of attenuation that would be provided by the construction of an 8-foot-tall noise barrier (block wall) adjacent to the SJVR track, as proposed.

Because future railroad noise level exposure is predicted to satisfy applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code exterior noise level criteria at the proposed development, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Conclusion
The Project will be required to comply with all noise policies and development standards identified within the Fresno General Plan and the noise ordinance of the Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 10 Article 1 – Noise Regulations. Through compliance with the policies and development standards, and with implementation of the mitigation measures as proposed on the TTM to reduce noise impacts related to the railroad and park sites, the interior and exterior noise levels would comply with the City’s noise standards and impacts will be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Project may produce an elevated ambient noise level during construction, however, those impacts are temporary, and no operational noise will be generated that exceeds the adopted noise levels identified for neighboring land uses. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? According to the Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines (FTA-VA-90-06), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual I I
for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.

The City of Fresno does not currently have adopted standards for groundborne vibration. As a result, vibration impact criteria established by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria were applied to the assessment of railroad operations at the project site. The FTA vibration impact criteria are based on maximum overall levels for a single event, such as train passersby.

On-Site Railroad Operations Vibration Levels
As indicated in Table 11 of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, the assessment measured railroad passersby vibration levels at site V-1 ranged from 80 VdB to 81 VdB at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the SJVR track. The Table 11 data also indicate that a maximum of two railroad events per day were identified over the 72-hour monitoring period. According to the FTA groundborne vibration impact assessment criteria provided in Table 1, a numeric standard of 80 VdB for “Infrequent Events” (defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day) is applied to residences and buildings where people normally sleep.

Based on the highest measured train passby vibration level at the 50-foot distance (81 VdB), vibration exposure from railroad operations is projected to be approximately 72 VdB at the building facade of the residence proposed nearest to the SJVR track, located approximately 75 feet away on Lot 74. The projected train passersby vibration level of 72 VdB would satisfy the applicable FTA groundborne vibration impact assessment criterion of 80 VdB.

Based on the measured railroad operations vibration levels at the project site and the analysis provided above, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Project Construction Vibration Levels
During Project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction. The nearest existing sensitive structures (residences) are located approximately 50 feet from construction activities which could occur within the project site.

Table 13-5 includes the range of vibration levels for equipment commonly used in general construction projects at a distance of 25 feet. The Table 13-5 data also include predicted equipment vibration levels at the nearest existing residences to the project site located approximately 50 feet away.

Table 13-5
Reference and Projected Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment
Equipment Reference PPV at 25 Feet1 Projected PPV at 50 Feet Hoe ram 0.089 0.032
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.032
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.032
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Source: 2018 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Table 7-4) and BAC calculations As shown in Table 13-5, vibration levels generated from project construction activities at the nearest residences located approximately 50 feet away are predicted to be well below the Caltrans thresholds for damage to residential structures of 0.5 in/sec PPV. In addition, the projected equipment vibration levels in Table 13-5 are within the range of the “barely/slightly perceptible” human response threshold as defined by Caltrans. Therefore, on-site construction within the project area is not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration levels at nearby existing residential uses.

Construction activity would be exempt from City of Fresno noise regulations, as long as such activity is conducted pursuant to an applicable construction permit and occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., excluding Sunday. The Project would also comply with Project Specific Mitigation Measure NOI-2 that prohibits the use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, short-term construction impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.

The Project would not generate excessive vibratory or noise impacts. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the noise-related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

NOI-2: Construction Vibration. The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.
c) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels?
The closest airport is the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 6 miles south of the Project site. The proposed Project is outside noise level contours identified in the Fresno Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Fresno Council of Governments, 2018).

Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels associated with such airport facilities and the Project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Population forecasts for the City of Fresno indicate growth for the City to include 1,373,700 persons by the year 2040, according to the City of Fresno General Plan.

The average persons per household is 3.07 according to the City of Fresno Housing Element. The 2020 City of Fresno population was 542,107.

The Project build-out will result in an additional 199 single-family residences, and a corresponding population increase of 611 residents. The Project population growth represents a 0.001 percent increase in the 2020 population, and a 0.00044 percent increase in the 2040 population. The Project related population increase is deminimis and will be absorbed over a minimum two-year time frame upon full buildout of the Project. The installation of new infrastructure would be limited to the internal single-family residences and related park site improvements. The sizing of the infrastructure would be specific to the number of units proposed within the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Project site is undeveloped and surrounded by a combination of vacant lots, agriculture, and residential property. As proposed, the Project will not displace existing housing or people either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there are no impacts.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Fire protection services within City limits are provided by the City of Fresno Fire Department. The Project site is located approximately 1-mile southwest of Fire Station 15.

The Project is required to pay development impact fees that will provide for future fire-related facilities as the City’s population increases. Recognizing that there would be an increased demand for fire and emergency medical response, the General Plan includes several policies to support the activities of the Fresno Fire Department. The policies and objectives of the General Plan will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect fire protection.

The construction of the Project may result in a minor increase in demand for fire protection services but would not require new or altered facilities. The General Plan includes several policies to support the activities of the Fresno Fire Department, such as PU-3-d, which requires the Fire Department to review of development applications, and PU-3-e, which enforces amendments to construction and fire codes, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

The policies and objectives of the General Plan will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect fire protection. The Project would not affect the Department’s response time to incidents as described in General Plan Policy PF-H 8. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As such, impacts to fire protection services will be less than significant. ii. Police protection?
Police protection services within the City limits are provided by the City of Fresno Police Department. The Project site resides within the Southeast Police District, Sector 3G, and is located approximately 1-mile southwest of the Southeast Police Station.

The Project may result in significant environmental impacts related to acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives specific to police protection services. However, to reduce impacts to public protection services, the Project developer is required to pay appropriate impact fees related to police protection and is responsible for constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project does not significantly affect police protection.

Therefore, with implementation of standard local requirements for development projects related to police protection services, Project impacts are considered less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of standard local requirements for development projects related to police protection services, Project impacts are considered less than significant.
iii. Schools?
The surrounding schools include Sunnyside High School, approximately 1 mile northeast, Winchell Elementary School, approximately 1.8 miles northwest, Edison High School approximately 4 miles west of the Project, Jefferson Elementary School approximately 3.25 miles northwest, and Fulton High School approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the Project.

The proposed residential uses result in the generation of students, which would impact the District’s student classroom capacity. Census Data shows the average household hold has approximately 3 persons per household, which would approximately yield 1 student per household, portion of whom may attend public K-12 schools. Any future development occurring as a result of the proposed project may have an effect on the Fresno Unified School District’s student housing capacity. The District, through local funding, is in a position to mitigate its shortage of classrooms to accommodate planned population growth for the foreseeable future. However, the District recognizes that the legislature, as a matter of law, has deemed under Government Code Section 65996 that all school facilities impacts are mitigated as a consequence of SB 50 Level 1, 2, and 3 developer fee legislative provisions. The project developer will pay appropriate impact fees at time of building permits. The proposed Project does not result in the construction of new school facilities.

School fees are collected for all new residential and commercial buildings. Fees are typically higher for residential uses, as these uses are associated with increased population growth, leading to increased student population at existing schools. The Project review and approval process will ensure that all school related fees are paid by the applicant. These requirements will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect school facilities. Therefore, with implementation of standard local requirements for development projects related to school fees, impacts are considered less than significant. iv. Parks?
Impacts on parks and recreational facilities are determined by analyzing the projected increase in demand for these facilities as a result of future residential development and corresponding population increase projected under the proposed Project. According the 2025 City of Fresno General Plan, the City’s standard called for at least 3.0 acres of parkland to be provided per 1,000 residents. Park and recreation fees (Quimby) are collected for all new residential developments. The Project review and approval process will ensure that all park related fees are paid by the developer.

However, the Project proposes Outlot A, which will be dedicated park acreage to the City of Fresno to satisfy park requirements of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Therefore, as the Project proposes a community park, the proposed Project does not significantly affect park and recreation facilities. Therefore, there is no impact as the Project will increase available park facilities and amenities in the area.
v. Other public facilities?
The Project build-out will result in an additional 199 single-family residences, and a corresponding population increase of 611 residents. The Project population growth represents a 0.00044 percent increase in the 2040 population. Impacts on other public facilities such as courts, libraries, and hospitals would be minimal.

The Project review and approval process will ensure that all development related impact fees are paid by the applicant. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the Project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Full build-out of the Fresno General Plan would result in a potential population increase of approximately 425,000 additional residents within the City and result in an increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities. Based on the proposed standard of 3 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, the build-out of the General Plan would require 4,850-acres of parkland and associated recreational amenities to serve all of the residents.

As discussed in Section XV (iv) PUBLIC SERVICES above, impacts on parks and recreational facilities are determined by analyzing the Projected increase in demand for these facilities. The Project build-out will result in a population increase of 611 residents. The Project population growth represents a 0.00044 percent increase in the 2040 population. Further, the Project proposes an approximate 2- acre parkland dedicated to the City for use by community members.

Therefore, there would be no impacts of the Project related to parks and recreational facilities.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
As stated above, Project proposes to develop an approximate 2-acre park for dedication to the City. Future construction of the park facilities and any associated infrastructure (such as bathrooms) will be conducted by the City of Fresno.

Therefore, through standard City building process for the future park, City staff will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect park and recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentiall
y
Significan
t Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented in this section are based on a Local Transportation Analysis prepared for the Project (VRPA, 2021b), which is attached as Appendix E. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Within proximity to the Project, there are several transportation facilities, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The 2017 City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP) refers to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for classification of bicycle facilities as follows:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for non-motorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): On-street facilities that use striping, stencils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): On-street pavement markings or signage that connect the bicycle roadway network along corridors that do not provide enough space for dedicated lanes on low-speed and low-volume streets.

Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeways): Physically separated bicycle facilities that are distinct from the sidewalk and designed for exclusive use by bicyclists. The ATP also identifies a Class I bike path along the San Joaquin Valley Railroad system, which the site will be responsible for contributing to development of the trail system.

It is noted that Outlot F has been identified on the map for dedication to the City of Fresno to develop the bike/trail system. Project development would be in accordance with alternative transportation policies included in the City of Fresno General Plan, the Fresno County Regional Transportation Plan, and any other adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian connectivity is not well established in the general vicinity of the site.

Sidewalks typically exist only within, and along the frontage of, adjacent residential developments. The Project would be required to construct sidewalks along its frontage. Upon submittal of development permits with the City for the Project, all applicable requirements for updating sidewalks and other related infrastructure will be required from the City of Fresno 2017 Active Transportation Plan.

Transit
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the transit operator in the City of Fresno. The closest is FAX Route 41, is located at the intersection S Chestnut and E Church Avenues.

The Project is not expected to have a significant impact, disrupt or impede existing transit facilities.

The Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Roadways
Access to and from the Project site will be from two (2) access points along the Project’s frontage on South Willow Avenue, located along the west Project boundary. Additional access for the Project is proposed on the east Project boundary to connect with existing future local streets upon development of the residential land use designation. No further access points or frontage of other streets are proposed for this Project, as the north side of the Project is adjacent to the Braly Canal and an existing railroad. To the south of the Project site are existing single-family residences and a retention basin.

The City threshold is a LOS standard of D or better for all roadways. Results of the analysis show that the intersection of Church Avenue at Willow Avenue does not currently meet the minimum level of service criteria during the AM Peak Hour (VRPA, 2021b) The intersection of Butler Avenue / Willow Avenue, Church Avenue / Willow Avenue, and Jensen Avenue / Willow Avenue is expected to exceed the LOS threshold during peak periods as a result of the cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project scenario. To improve the LOS at these intersections, Mitigation Measure MM TRA-1 requiring payment of Fair Share fee to pay for future improvements to the intersection. Payment of fees would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Pro-Rate Fair Share of Future Transportation Improvements The Project’s fair share percentage impact to study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold and which are not covered by an existing impact fee program is provided in Table 17-1. Table 17-1 shows the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities, or portion thereof, currently not funded by the responsible agencies roadway impact fee program(s) or grant funded projects, as appropriate. For those improvements not presently covered by local and regional roadway impact fee programs or grant funding, it is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share. Payment of the Project’s equitable fair share in addition to the local and regional impact fee programs would reduce the Project’s traffic impacts related to LOS to less than significant levels.

Table 17-1
Fair Share Impact Fees

INTERSECTION PEAK

HOUR EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS

CUMULATIVE
YEAR 2042 PLUS

PROJECT

FAIR SHARE

PERCENTAGE
Butler Avenue / Willow Avenue
AM 1,065 90 1,988 9.8%
PM 870 122 1,722 14.3%
Church Avenue / Willow Avenue
AM 1,133 54 2,063 5.8%
PM 900 74 1,730 8.9%
Jensen Avenue / Willow Avenue
AM 1,527 31 2,901 2.3%
PM 1,451 43 2,853 3.1%
The proposed Project will not require any changes to existing transportation systems and will have no impact on any plans, ordinances, or policies related to the effectiveness or performance of the circulation system. The Project will comply with all applicable City development standards. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the transportation related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022.

MM TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay its pro rata share for signalization and roadway improvements such as the construction of additional turn lanes and through lanes of the following intersections:
• Church Avenue / Willow Avenue
• Butler Avenue / Willow Avenue
• Jensen Avenue / Willow Avenue
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Vehicle Miles Traveled:

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

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

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020.

The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The Project is located at 2121 South Willow Avenue, on the east side of Willow Avenue approximately halfway between Kings Canyon Road and Jensen Avenue.

Based on Figure 6 of the City of Fresno’s CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled, this is a low VMT area (VRPA, 2021b).

As noted in The City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) provides an analytical service to review a proposed project’s potential VMT impacts through the use of models and VMT calculators. Based on the scope of the project, the Fresno COG recommends that projects that propose 500 residential units or less can be analyzed using the Fresno COG VMT Calculation tool. In fact, Section 4.2.3.1 of the Fresno COG Implementation Regional Guidelines, projects may be calculated using the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool for residential projects.

Therefore, an analysis was completed using the most recent version of the VMT calculator tool (v1.38) for the proposed Project. The analysis resulted in a projectspecific Per Capita VMT of 10.3, which is less than the adopted threshold of 14 VMT per capita. This is also a 13% reduction of the 16.1 regional VMT threshold (the results of the VMT Calculator is included in Appendix E). Because the Project will result in the generation of VMT less than the threshold that has been adopted by the City of Fresno, no VMT mitigation is needed, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Project will be designed to current standards and safety regulations. All intersections will be constructed as to comply with the City and Caltrans regulations, and design and safety standards of Chapter 33 of the California Building Codes (CBC) and the guidelines of Title 24 in order to create safe and accessible roadways.

Vehicles exiting the subdivision will be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstructions. Landscaping associated with the entry driveways could impede such views, if improperly installed. Specific circulation patterns and roadway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the project area would not occur. Therefore, with the incorporated design features and all applicable rules and regulations, the Project will have a less than significant impact. The Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. There would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
There will be two main entry points to the Project from S Willow Avenue and future proposed additional entry points to approved residential development east of the Project site. The Project will be required to construct all necessary street frontage improvements to City Standards. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to dedicate and construct improvements along all major street frontages and on any future proposed interior local streets within respective phases in accordance with City of Fresno standards, specifications and requirements.

The Project is not located near an airport; therefore, it will not change air traffic levels. The proposed streets will not create hazards or conflict with emergency access. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with emergency access.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required

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

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

X

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
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 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)).

Pursuant to AB 52, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California and Dumna Wo Wah Tribal Government were invited to consult under AB 52. The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed Project to each of these tribes on April 15, 2022 , which included the required 30-day time period required by AB 52which ended on May 16, 2022. Neither tribe decided to request consultation for the project during the required comment period.

As noted in V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (a)-(c), a cultural resources records search was conducted by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University Bakersfield. The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the Project site and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that the subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources. No cultural resources have been recorded on the property and it is not known if any exist there Eight cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project. No cultural resources have been recorded on the subject property and it is not known if any exist on it.

One cultural resource has been identified within a half mile of the proposed project. This is a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad line (P-10-003930) that abuts the project property on its northern boundary. Although part of a historic railroad route, the track is in active use and is not a significant cultural resource. In addition, the proposed Project would not impact the railroad line.

The Project will not impact these historical resources, as construction will be restricted to the boundaries of the site.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated October 14, 2020 indicates negative results.

It should be noted however, that lack of surface evidence of tribal cultural resources. Furthermore, previously unknown or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during Project construction. However, during excavation activities, there is always the potential to discover archaeological or historical cultural resources. In the event cultural resources are found, construction will halt, and a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources specialist will be contacted and will make recommendations to the City.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and was historically in agricultural production. 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 Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 12, 2022 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.

In conclusion, with Project Specific Mitigation Measures incorporated, the Project will not result in any cultural resource impacts, and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL 1.2 and CUL-3 will result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1.1, CUL 1.2 and CUL-3
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.

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 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.

Overall, because all tribes to which invitations for consultation were extended declined AB 52 consultation and because existing cultural resources protection laws exist that would require construction activities to cease if artifacts are discovered. The Project site is currently undeveloped and was historically in agricultural production. 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 GP PEIR, will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional.

In conclusion, with GP PEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the Project will not result in any cultural resource impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP PEIR, and implementation of GP PEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1.1, CUL 1.2, CUL-2 and CUL-3 will result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1.1, CUL 1.2 and CUL-3

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
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?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed Project will require construction of new infrastructure to connect to the existing utility infrastructure. This will include water, wastewater, and storm water drainage connections. Additionally, the Project will include connections for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The installation of this infrastructure will not require any major upsizing or other offsite construction activities that would cause a significant impact. The new infrastructure would be connected to existing infrastructure that is adjacent to the Project site.

Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed in X.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (b, c (i)-C(iii) and e). In compliance with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, the proposed Project would design and submit a site-specific SWPPP to minimize the discharge of wastewater during construction and a Water Quality Management Plan that includes BMPs for runoff control as required. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new stormwater drainage facilities to manage stormwater runoff during construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.

Sanitary sewer and water service under City of Fresno jurisdiction, delivery is also subject to payment of applicable connection charges and/or fees; compliance with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies; the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Health Services; and, implementation of the Citywide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply, treatment, and storage. Therefore, the impacts of the Project are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As discussed under the Section VII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (b, c(i)-c(iii) and e, the proposed Project is anticipated to use approximately 133.74 acre-feet of water annually. The Project will obtain water by connecting to City utility services. The City Department of Public Works issued comments on the Project dated April 29, 2022 regarding among other things, water service and water supply requirements. These requirements included the use of water meters, the installation of water mains, fire hydrants, and the payment of applicable Water Capacity fees.

The GP PEIR recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as, the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan, and cites the findings of the City of Fresno 2020 UWMP. As was previously discussed, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water supply and there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities to reduce the Project’s water impacts to less than significant. Impacts of the Project are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
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? The City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewer Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and the North Fresno Wastewater Treatment Facility (NFWTF). The Regional Facility provides wastewater treatment for a service area that includes most of the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, and some unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The Regional Facility received and treated approximately 72,302 acre‐feet (AF) of wastewater during 2011, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 64.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The quantity of wastewater received and treated by the Regional Facility has been declining since 2006, when it peaked at a total of approximately 80,801 AF, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 72.1 MGD.

The permitted wastewater treatment capacity of the Regional Facility is currently 80-MGD as an annual monthly average flow, and 88-MGD as a maximum monthly average flow. The City is currently evaluating upgrades and modifications to the existing Regional Facility that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15-MGD.

The City of Clovis owns 9.3-MGD of wastewater treatment capacity at the Regional Facility, and the City of Fresno owns the remaining capacity.

The NFWTF was constructed in late 2006 to provide wastewater treatment service for residential and commercial development in the surrounding area of north Fresno. The permitted capacity of the NFWRF is 0.71-MGD, as an average monthly flow, and 1.07-MGD, as a maximum daily flow. The City's master plan for the NFWRF calls for ultimate expansion to an average monthly flow capacity of 1.07- MGD upon full development of the NFWRF service area.

The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed Project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. The proposed Project will not result in an inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s anticipated wastewater demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts are less than significant .

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
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?
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Solid Waste Division has reviewed the Project for compliance with any federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. According to the City’s General Plan PEIR, garbage disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman. American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers. The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for non‐hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day.

The American Avenue Landfill (i.e. American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047. There is also the Coalinga Landfill with a maximum remaining capacity of 1,930,062 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 200 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2029. As noted above, the estimated closure date of the American Avenue Landfill is 2031. Additional capacity also exists at the Clovis Landfill and Coalinga Landfill. The 200 tons per year would not result in exceedance of the local capacity infrastructure.

It is anticipated the Project would generate minimal amounts of waste during construction. Any hazardous waste generated during construction would be disposed of at an approved location and construction activities are not expected to exceed the capacity of these landfills.

Once operational, typical household refuse would be generated by residences.

Using the CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates Website for Residential Sector Generation Rate of 12.23 lbs/household/day, the proposed 199 units would generate 2,435 pounds of waste per day (or 444 tons per year). The Project will comply with any statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any waste related environmental impacts. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste are handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act requires jurisdictions to attain specific waste diversion goals (AB 939, 2019). In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development Projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed Project design.

Reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. With development in accordance with the City’s General Plan, solid waste will continue to be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, State, and local regulation pertaining to municipal waste disposal. The City has a number of provisions that require or promote recycling and waste reduction, including the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance that requires contractors to recycle construction and demolition debris.

In 2005, the Fresno City Council adopted the City of Fresno Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities Ordinance (Ord. No. 2003-100) in order to comply with AB 939, which requires the implementation of integrated waste management plans and mandates that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste. The recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building, relocation, or demolition permit that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume.

The Project would generate solid waste during construction and operation of the new single-family residences. Common construction waste may include metals, masonry, plastic pipe, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land development. AB 939 and Ordinance No. 2003-100 require the City of Fresno to attain specific waste diversion goals. The wasted disposal facilities listed above have available capacity to accept construction waste from potential new facilities.

The Project is required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations related to solid waste and would not result in any utility related environmental impacts.

Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
Project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

DISCUSSION
Setting
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Project site.

The Project site is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. Although this CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or Very High FHSZ, out of an abundance of caution, these checklist questions are analyzed below. a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Fresno’s Police and Fire Departments are tasked with all local emergency response efforts. In addition, the City’s full-time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up-to-date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations.

The proposed Project is for the construction 199 single-family residences, related development improvements, and an approximate 2-acre park. These types of uses are similar in nature to the other uses within the Project area. It is not anticipated that new or different impairments would occur that may physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. All Project plans submitted to the City will be reviewed incompliance with Federal, State and local regulations related to emergency access. The Project is required to comply with all local, State, and federal regulations related to emergency preparedness, and would not result in environmental impacts.

Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
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?
See IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (g). Although the City of Fresno is proximate to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the City is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to urban development. Some small areas along the San Joaquin River Bluff area in northern Fresno are prone to wildfires due to relatively steep terrain/vegetation, and these areas are classified as high fire hazard areas. The Project area is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and has been designated as NonWildland by CalFire.

The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately urban, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildlife. The Project would not pose a wildfire risk during construction or operations. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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?
See discussion under XX. WILDFIRE (a) above. The Project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage) required to support the proposed residential uses and park site. The Project site is surrounded by agriculture, vacant lots, and single-family residences. However, the site is not located within an area designated as a high wildfire risk. Additionally, all new single-family residences would be required to comply with federal, State, and local health and safety regulations, development standards, building codes, and other laws and regulations that govern fire protection and suppression.

All Project related construction will meet or exceed all Federal, State and local regulations and codes related to fire protection and suppression. Additionally, the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure and will not exacerbate fire risk that may result in impacts to the environment. Therefore, there are no impacts. Therefore, Project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
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?
The Project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and with little to no topography and not near a mountain, hill, bluff, etc. Additionally, there is no body of water within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain.

Therefore, the Project will not expose people or structures to risks of causing downstream flooding, landslides, runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes.

The Project would not pose a risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides during construction or operations and there are no impacts.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required
References
AB 939. (2019). California Legislative Information. Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB939 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021). Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment- Autumn Ridge TM 6345.

Cal Fire. (2018). Fire and Resource Assessment Program.

California Building Standards Commission. (2019). Guide to Title 24.

California Builiding Association v Bay Area Air Quality Mangement District, S213478 (Alameda Supreme Court 2015).

City of Fresno. (2020). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

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

Fresno Council of Governments. (2018). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

QK. (2020a). Biological Resource Evaluation- Autumn Ridge Residential Project.

QK. (2020b). Cultural Resources Records Search Results - Autumn Ridge Resideential Project.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Census . Retrieved from Fresno, CA: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia VRPA. (2021a). Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment- Autumn Ridge Residential Project.

VRPA. (2021b). Local Transportation Analysis- Autumn Ridge Residential Development.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the Project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the Project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a Project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other
current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects)?
X
c) Does the Project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The size of the Project is a size that is not a detriment to the existing environment with the Project area. The Project will not reduce habitat, biological resource populations, or local historical components. As discussed in Section IV. Biological Resources and Section V, Cultural Resources, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-1.4, BIO-2.1, CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, CUL-2, CUL-3, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or reduce the habitat of wildlife species and will not threaten plant communities or endanger any floral or faunal species. Furthermore, the Project has no potential to eliminate important examples of major periods in history. With implementation of applicable City of Fresno General Plan PEIR mitigation measures, impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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.)
The Project is considered to be proposed at a size and scope that would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with existing or future development as described in this initial study document.

Implementation of recommended mitigation measures AES-4.1, AES-4.2, AG-1.1, AIR-2.1 AIR-2.2, BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-1.4, BIO-2.1, CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, CUL-2, CUL-3, GEO-6.1, and NOI-2 would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

For the topics of Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife, the Project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics..
c) Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The Project is consistent with applicable environmental policies and mitigation measures as outlined in the General Plan PEIR that are required in several impact areas to reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Additionally, due to the existing residential development surrounding the project site and in the general area, the General Plan anticipates that future development will increase the density within adjacent areas.

Development is planned to occur in the immediate area projected by the City’s General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan PEIR.

Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly. With implementation of applicable City of Fresno General Plan PEIR mitigation measures AES-4.1, AES-4.2, AG-1.1, AIR-2.1 AIR-2.2, BIO-1.1, BIO-1.2, BIO-

1.4, BIO-2.1, CUL-1.1, CUL-1.2, CUL-2, CUL-3, GEO-6.1, , and NOI-2, impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist for EA No. T6345/P22-00411/P22-00442 August 12, 2022
This Project Requirement checklist was prepared pursuant to California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 to uniformly apply development standards and policies for the Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Letter designations to the right of each Project Specific Mitigation Measure listed in this Exhibit note how the project requirement 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:

A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete C - Project
Requirement in ProgressD - Responsible
Agency Contacted E - Part of City-wide
Program
F - Not Applicable
The timing of implementing each Project requirements is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible forverifying that the Project requirement applied to a Project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidencethat project requirements are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that the Project requirements are performed/completed.

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Aesthetics:

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 beused 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)
X X

I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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 X X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

Air Quality:

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 exceedcriteria 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 toreduce the impacts to the extent feasible. Mitigationmeasures 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.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance of
building permits
DARM X

I I I I I

I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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)
Prior to
issuance of
building permits

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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]
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.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance of
building permits

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
AG-1: MM AG-1.1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer of APN 473-030-10/63 shall complete the following measures to mitigate the loss of agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 for the net acreage before conversion. (The net acreage calculation shall exclude existing roads and areas already developed with structures, and a plot plan shall be submitted to substantiate the net acreage calculation, along with written evidence of compliance.).

Mitigation land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and/or Unique Farmland and be of similar agricultural quality or higher, as established by the California Department of Conservation. Completion of the selected measure or, with the City of Fresno Planning Director’s approval, a combination of measures can occur on qualifying land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, or Kern County) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.

Developer shall provide in-kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of 42.3 acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non-agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the Project site. The land selected Prior to
issuance of
building permits

DARM X X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of
Conservation(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grantprograms/Documents/grant/SALCP%20Model%20ACE%20Tem plate%20(2014-2015)%20Final%2012.4.2015.pdf).

PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Biological Resources:

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 special-status species are determined to occupy any portion 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
issuance of
building permits

DARM X X X
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 California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2081 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10
permitting processes must take place prior to any action that (continued on next page)
Prior to
issuance of
building permits

DARM X X X

I I I I I

I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
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
issuance of
building permits

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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]
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 nestinghabitat 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 nestingactivity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If anactive 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
issuance of
building permits
and during
construction
activities

DARM X X X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT 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]
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 reduce 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-basedmitigation will be determined through consultation with theappropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case-by- case basis.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance of
building permits

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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 USACE consultation, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway, shall be
implemented.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance of
building permits
DARM X
BIO-7: Project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a specialstatus 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 specialstatus species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Verification comments:

Prior to
issuance of
building permits
DARM X

I I I I I

I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

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 X
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 issuance
of building
permits;but for
long-term
operational
BMPs, prior to
issuance of
occupancy
DARM X

I I I I I

I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

BIO-9 (continued from previous page):
incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring projectrelated impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

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

CUL-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 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 (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

CUL-1 (continued from previous page)
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.

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-germ preservation to allow future scientific study.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.

If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

CUL-2 (continued from previous page)
archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologistshall be consulted to determine whether the resource requiresfurther study. The qualified archaeologist 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation 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 prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided
(continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

CUL-2 (further continued from previous two pages)
to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The
resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could includeavoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space,parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and
construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be
determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during
(continued on next page)
[see Page 14] [see Page 14]
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA T-6345/P22-00411/P22- 00442 August 12, 2022
A - Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

CUL-2 (further continued from previous three pages)
excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

Verification comments:
[see Page 14] [see Page 14]
CUL-3: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall beconducted. The following procedures shall be followed:

If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered
(continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities

DARM X I I I I I
PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. T-6345/P22-00411/P22-00442 August 12, 2022 Cultural Resources (continued):A -
Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable

PROJECT REQUIREMENT WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

CUL-3 (continued from previous page)
resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation 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 paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be providedto a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

If unique paleontological/geological resources are foundduring the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resourcesare found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the sitein green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and
construction activities in the vicinity of the
(continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. T-6345/P22-00411/P22-00442 August 12, 2022 Cultural Resources (continued):A -
Incorporated into Project
B - Project Requirement Complete
C - Project Requirement in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-Wide Program
F - Not Applicable