Exhibit M – Environmental Assessment (Including
Studies)
3/1/22, 11:25 AM Adportal Self Service Advertising Confirmation https://placelegal.mcclatchy.com/legals/fresno/home/confirmation.html?id=54790&returnto= 1/1 THANK YOU for your legal submission!
Your legal has been submitted for publication. Below is a confirmation of your legal placement. You will also receive an email confirmation.
ORDER DETAILS
Order Number:
IPL0062850
Order Status:
Submitted
Classification:
Legals & Public Notices
Package:
FRS - Legal Ads
Final Cost:
1,005.48
Payment Type:
Account Billed
User ID:
IPL0024907
ACCOUNT INFORMATION
CITY OF FRESNO DARM IP
2600 FRESNO STREET, 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 3065
FRESNO, CA 93721
559-621-8011
[email protected]
CITY OF FRESNO DARM
TRANSACTION REPORT
Date
March 1, 2022 2:24:52 PM EST
Amount:
1,005.48
SCHEDULE FOR AD NUMBER IPL00628500
March 4, 2022
The Fresno Bee
<< Click here to print a printer friendly version >>
PREVIEW FOR AD NUMBER IPL00628500
BUSSETO FOODS PROCESSING, WAREHOUSING,
AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Development Permit Application No. P20-04211
Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P20-04209
Initial Study prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Prepared for
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Prepared by
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
March 2022
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 2 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Regulatory Information ................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Document Format ....................................................................................................... 10 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Project Title ................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................. 11
2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................... 11
2.4 Study Prepared By ....................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Latitude and Longitude ............................................................................................... 12
2.7 General Plan Designation ............................................................................................ 12
2.8 Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 12
2.9 Description of Project ................................................................................................. 12
2.10 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .............................................................. 14
2.11 Project Entitlements ................................................................................................... 15
2.12 Project Construction and Phasing ............................................................................... 15
2.13 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................... 15
2.14 Project Components ................................................................................................... 15
2.15 Required Project Approvals ........................................................................................ 27
2.16 Technical Studies ........................................................................................................ 27
2.17 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................................. 27 3 DETERMINATION ................................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................... 29
3.2 Determination ............................................................................................................. 30 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................... 33
4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................. 33
4.1.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 34
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 3
4.1.2 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 34
4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 36
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................ 37
4.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 38
4.2.2 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 39
4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 41
4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................ 42
4.3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 42
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................... 59
4.3.3 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................. 66
4.3.4 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 75
4.3.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 91
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 92
4.4.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 93
4.4.2 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 94
4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 97
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 98
4.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 98
4.5.2 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 99
4.5.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 100
4.6 ENERGY ..................................................................................................................... 101
4.6.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 101
4.6.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 102
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 103
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................. 104
4.7.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 105
4.7.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 107
4.7.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 110
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 4
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................. 111
4.8.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 111
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 115
4.8.3 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ............................................................... 128
4.8.4 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 128
4.8.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 140
4.9 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ............................................................... 141
4.9.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 142
4.9.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 143
4.9.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 148
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................................... 149
4.10.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 150
4.10.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 151
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 156
4.11 LAND USE PLANNING ................................................................................................ 157
4.11.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 157
4.11.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 157
4.11.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 160
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 161
4.12.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 161
4.12.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 161
4.12.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 162
4.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 163
4.13.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 163
4.13.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 165
4.13.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 169
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................... 170
4.14.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 170
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 5
4.14.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 170
4.14.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 171
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 172
4.15.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 172
4.15.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 174
4.15.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 175
4.16 RECREATION .............................................................................................................. 176
4.16.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 176
4.16.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 176
4.16.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 177
4.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 178
4.17.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 178
4.17.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 179
4.17.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 182
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 183
4.18.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 184
4.18.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 185
4.18.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 186
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 187
4.19.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 188
4.19.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 189
4.19.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 193
4.20 WILDFIRE – IF LOCATED IN OR NEAR STATE RESPONSIBILITY OR LANDS CLASSIFIED AS VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES ............................................................................. 194
4.20.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 195
4.20.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 195
4.20.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 196
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................... 197
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 6
4.21.1 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 198 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................................... 199 6 REPORT PREPARATION ........................................................................................................ 200 7 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 201 Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report ............................................... 202 Appendix B: Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................. 203 Appendix C: CHRIS Record Search Results............................................................................... 204 Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .......................................................................... 205
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 7 Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Regional Location ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2-3 General Plan Land Use Designation Map ..................................................................... 20 Figure 2-4 Zoning Map .................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 2-5 Site Plan of the proposed Project ................................................................................. 22 Figure 2-6 Conceptual Elevation of the proposed Project ............................................................ 23 Figure 2-7 Architectural and Structural Plans of proposed Security Kiosk .................................... 24 Figure 2-8 Conceptual Floor Plan and Elevation of the proposed Pavilion ................................... 25 Figure 2-9 Landscaping of the proposed Project ........................................................................... 26 Figure 4-1 Farmland Category Map ............................................................................................... 40 Figure 4-2 Project Site with a 1,000 Foot Buffer ........................................................................... 87 Figure 4-3 Geologic Map of the Fresno region ............................................................................ 107 Figure 4-4 GHG Emissions by Economic Sector ........................................................................... 114
Tables
Table 2-1 Anticipated Truck Traffic Generated by the Project ...................................................... 13 Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2-3 Proposed Phasing of Construction ................................................................................ 15 Table 4-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................. 44 Table 4-2 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status ............................................................ 56 Table 4-3 Ambient Air Quality Summary ....................................................................................... 57 Table 4-4 CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary Table for the Proposed Project .............. 68 Table 4-5 Project Construction Schedule ...................................................................................... 68 Table 4-6 Project Construction Equipment ................................................................................... 69 Table 4-7 Construction Vehicle Trips ............................................................................................. 70 Table 4-8 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold .................................................................................... 75
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 8 Table 4-9 Construction Emissions – Unmitigated .......................................................................... 79 Table 4-10 Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated ............. 79 Table 4-11 Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Construction ................ 84 Table 4-12 Estimated Trucking Numbers ...................................................................................... 86 Table 4-13 Health Risks from the Proposed Project at the Maximally Exposed Sensitive Receptor ....................................................................................................................................................... 89 Table 4-14 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. 132 Table 4-15 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 133 Table 4 -16 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies ..................................................................................................................................... 134 Table 4-17 Consistency with the City of Fresno GHG Plan Update ............................................. 135 Table 4-18 Project Consistency with Applicable SJVAPCD CCAP GHG Reduction Measures ....... 137 Table 4-19 Project Consistency with Applicable Fresno COG Goals ............................................ 137 Table 4-20 Safety Zone Land Use Compatibility Standards ......................................................... 146 Table 4-21 Projected Water Use by Sector, 2020 – 2040 ........................................................... 152 Table 4-22 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use ....................................................... 153 Table 4-23 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan ................................................. 158 Table 4-24 Results from VMT Analysis ........................................................................................ 181
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 9 1 INTRODUCTION
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) on behalf of the City of Fresno (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. The City of Fresno is the Lead Agency for this proposed Project. The site and the proposed Project are described in detail in Section 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
1.1 Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) , also known as the CEQA Guidelines , Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoi d or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An MND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS i s released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 10
1.2 Document Format
This IS/ND contains five (5) chapters plus appendices SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION provides bases of the IS/ND’s regulatory information and an overview of the proposed Project. SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION provides a detailed description of proposed Project components. SECTION 3 DETERMINATION concludes that the IS is an ND, identifies the environmental factors potentially affected based on the analyses contained in this IS, and includes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon those analyses. SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analyses for all impact areas and the mandatory findings of significance. A brief discussion of the reasons why the Project impact is anticipated to be potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant , or why no impacts are expected is included.
SECTION 5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM presents the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/ND for the Project. The Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Biological Resources Evaluation, CHRIS Record Search Results, and VMT Analyses are provided as Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D respectively, at the end of this document.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 11 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including project location, project objectives, and required project approvals.
2.1 Project Title
Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility ( Development Permit Application No.
P20-04211, Plan Amendment and Rezone Application P20-04209)
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency
Will Tackett
Planning Manager
(559) 621-8000
Applicant
Armen Devejian
(559) 431-2389
ADE Inc.
2.4 Study Prepared By
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
2.5 Project Location
The Project site is located at 2325 South West Avenue and 995 West Church Avenue on the southeast corner of South West Avenue and West Church Avenue in Fresno, CA , approximately two (2) miles west of State Route-41 (SR-41) and State Route-99 (SR-99) and two (2) miles south of State Route-180 (SR-180) (see Figure 2 -1). The site consists of two (2) parcels that total approximately 18.90 -acres. The site is identified as APNs 477-030-20 and 477-030-21 of Fresno County and is a portion of Section 17, Township 14 South, Range 20 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 12
2.6 Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project area is 36.713054, -119.824243.
2.7 General Plan Designation
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential – Medium Density (5.0-12 du/acre) (see Figure 2-3). Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P20-04209 requests to change the existing land use designation to Employment – Light Industrial. According to the Fresno General Plan, the Employment – Light Industrial land use designation is intended to accommodate a diverse range of light industrial uses, including manufacturing and processing, research and development, fabrication, utility equipment and service yards, warehousing, distribution activities, small-scale retail, etc. These areas may serve as buffers for heavy industrial and are generally located in areas with good transportation access.
2.8 Zoning
The Project site is in the RS -5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density /Urban Growth Management) Zone District (see Figure 2-4). Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P20 -04209 requests to change the existing zoning designation to IL ( Light Industrial/Urban Growth Management). According to the Fresno Municipal Code, the purpose of the IL zone district is to provide a diverse range of light industrial uses, as listed above under General Plan Designation.
2.9 Description of Project
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including operations, site preparation, proposed structures, and on- and off-site improvements.
Project Description
The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment/Rezone (Plan Amendment/Rezone Application No. P20-04209) and Development Permit (Development Permit Application No. P20 -04211) to facilitate the development of a food processing, warehousing, and distribution facility for Busseto Foods, Inc. (Facility), a manufacturer and marketer of Italian -style specialty meats, in the city of Fresno. The Project would allow for the construction of a ± 477,470- square foot (sf.) f acility that consists of two (2) stories with a ground floor of approximately 470,730-sf. and second floor for 6,740-sf. in addition to two (2) 121- sf. security kiosks. The Project will allow Busseto Foods, Inc. to consolidate all Fresno based facilities and operations under one roof. A majority of operations including the processing, warehousing, and distribution activities are located on the ground floor with administrative activities located on the second floor. The Project site comprises two (2) parcels totaling approximately ± 18.90-acres located at 2325 South West Avenue and 995 West Church Avenue on the southeast corner of South West Avenue and
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 13 West Church Avenue in Fresno, CA (APNs 477-030-20 and 477-030-21). The Project would require a plan amendment and rezone to allow industrial uses.
Hours of Operation
The Facility will operate five (5) days per week, Monday through Friday, from 5:00 am to 10:30 pm. Shifts will comprise one (1) production shift (5:00 am to 2:00 pm) and two (2) slicing and packaging shifts (5:00 am to 1:30 pm and 2:30 pm to 10:30 pm).
Employment
Approximately 160 employees are projected to work at the Facility, including 20-50 temporary/part-time seasonal employees that are projected to work from September to December. Employees are provided with competitive wages, benefits, and amenities. The new campus will provide indoor and outdoor break areas, including a covered pavilion with s eating for employees, lactation room for nursing mothers, and medical facilities.
Products
The products produced at the Facility will include four (4) types of dried meat – salami, pancetta, coppa, and prosciutto. The facility will include a large kitchen, refrigeration and freezing cold boxes; rooms for seasoning, storage, washing, cleaning, and unpacking and packing, as well as loading and unloading docks.
Nearly one half of the building will be a giant drying room for the prosciutto.
Production of these items involves a non-odor emitting process consisting of fermentation and drying in atmosphere-controlled rooms. No slaughtering or butchering of meat takes place in the facility. Nearly all meat arrives frozen from other locations. It is anticipated that the Facility will produce 500,000 to 600,000 pounds of dried meat per week. The Facility will not have a retail store on site.
Truck Traffic
Truck trips associated with the Facility will consist of shipping, receiving, and freezer activities during weekdays, Monday through Friday, from either 8:00 am to 12:30 pm or 1:00 to 5:00 pm ( see Table 2-1).
In total, the Project anticipates between 10 and 13 truck trips per day. In addition to these anticipated trips, the Facility is expected to send and receive UPS and FedEx shipments and deliveries during weekdays, Monday through Friday. Pallet truck deliveries are expected one (1) to two (2) times a month and solid waste collection is expected to occur weekly as required by the City of Fresno.
Table 2-1 Anticipated Truck Traffic Generated by the Project Truck
Types
Truck
Schedule
Number of Truck Trips
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 14 Shipping 1:00 – 5:00 pm 5 4 5 7 4
Receiving 8:00 am – 12:30 pm 3 3 3 3 3
Freezer 8:00 am – 12:30 pm 3 3 3 3 3
Total Trucks 11 10 11 13 10
Special Events
The Facility will contain training facilities where employees, salespeople, and clients can train, visit, conduct meetings, host clients, and conduct tastings of the product lines. Busseto Foods will host a Job Fair three (3) or four (4) times a year that focu ses on Southwest Fresno residents. Busseto Food will also work with the new Fresno Community College campus located nearby for career -oriented opportunities and job placement services on the facility.
2.10 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Project Setting
Historically, the Project site has been operated as agricultural land as recently as 2017. Today, the site is vacant with no improvements or structures , other than power -poles and a pump/well . Topography is generally flat. The existing biotic condit ions and resources of the Project site can be defined as ruderal and is composed of herbaceous vegetation. There are no shrubs or trees present on the site. West Church Avenue, a two (2)-lane, east-west collector forms the northerly site boundary and South West Avenue, a two (2)-lane, north-west collector forms the westerly site boundary. No street frontage improvements are present (i.e., no curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm -drains, or streetlights) except for existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk located on the north side of West Church Avenue.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project site is in an area generally characterized by a mix of existing land uses including industrial (north), open space (south and east), and junk yard s (west). Busseto Food’s cur rent operating facilities are located 70 feet north of the Project site at 1090 West Church Avenue and 3.3 miles northwest of the Project site at 1351 N Crystal Ave, Fresno, CA 93728. Busseto plans to consolidate all operations from their current facilities in Fresno to this site. As shown in Table 2-2, the surrounding properties are also planned for a mix of uses including employment (north and west), open space (south), and residential (east).
Table 2-2 Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from
Project site Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District North Industrial Employment – Office O - Office
South Open Space/Ponding Basin Open Space – Ponding Basin OS – Open Space
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 15 East Open Space/Agriculture Residential – Medium Density RS – 5 West Junk Yard Employment – Business Park N/A – County
2.11 Project Entitlements
The Project requires planning entitlements, including a plan amendment/rezone and development permit. The Plan Amendment/Rezone Application requests to change the land use designatio n from Residential – Medium Density to Employment – Light Industrial and zoning designation from RS -5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density) to IL (Light Industrial). The development permit is to approve and entitle the design and layout of the Facility. A parcel merger is also required to merge the two parcels that comprise the Project site.
2.12 Project Construction and Phasing
The Project is anticipated to begin construction in the February 2022 with full buildout by January 2023.
The expected phasing is shown below in Table 2-3. It is important to note that the phases below are estimates only and are dependent on resources available at the time.
Table 2-3 Proposed Phasing of Construction
Phase Start Finish
Site Preparation February 2022 March 2022
Grading/Excavation March 2022 April 2022
Draining/Utilities/Trenching March 2022 April 2022
Foundations/Concrete Pour April 2022 May 2022
Building Construction May 2022 January 2023
Paving November 2022 January 2023
2.13 Site Preparation
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; there are no existing structures on site. Site preparation would include typical grading activities to ensure an adequately graded site for drainage purposes. Part of the preparation would include the removal of any vegetation necessary to accommodate the Project. Other site preparation activities would include minor excavation for the installation of utility infrastructure, for coneyance of water, sewer, stormwater, and i rrigation. There are no buildings proposed for demolition as part of this Project.
2.14 Project Components
This section describes the overall components of the Project, such as the proposed buildings, landscape, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and utilities.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 16 Demolition
As mentioned under Section 2.13 Site Preparation, the site is vacant and undeveloped and therefore, there would be no structures demolished as part of the Project.
Site Layout and Elevations
As shown in Figure 2-5, the Project proposes the construction of a 477,470-sf. food processing, warehousing, and distribution facility , consisting of two (2) stories with a ground floor of approximately 470,730 sf. and a second floor of 6,740 sf., for a total building area of 477,470-sf. The Project also proposes two (2) 121-sf. security kiosks to be located on West Church Avenue at both points of ingress/egress (see Figure 2-7), an outdoor, covered employee pavilion with patio furniture in the northeast corner of the site (see Figure 2-8), as well as truck unloading and loading on the western and eastern portions of the site, and a trash enclosure (trash, recycling, and grease) on the eastern portion of the site. Conceptual elevations are shown in Figure 2-6. As shown, the Facility would reach a maximum height of ± 37 feet and the exterior would consist of concrete, stucco, and metal. Exterior lighting is also proposed and will provide safety lighting for the parking lot, walkways, and areas surrounding the Facility’s exterior.
The Project is designed and built with state of the art technological and energy efficient products, materials, and methods. The Project design uses Building Energy Modeling to implement bottom-up engineering models that describe the physical and thermal interactions between various components of the building, including the envelope, lighting, equipment and appliances, and heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems. This facility is LEED certified, the most widely used green building rating system, thus the facility consists of healthy, livable, highly efficient and cost saving green buildings.
Site Circulation and Parking
The Project would be access ible by automobiles via two (2) points of ingress/egress along West Church Avenue. A n eight (8) -foot wrought iron fence will be installed at both entrances . The proposed site circulation will reduce surface vehicular traffic in Southwest Fresno by consolidating four (4) existing locations into one combined facility/campus. The net effect is the pe rmanent elimination of at least 40 truck trips per week and consequently, improve air quality, reduce noise impact, and elevate livability. All new arriving truck traffic will be required to travel on Jensen Avenue towards West Avenue, then turn northbound on West into the Project site. All new departing truck traffic will be required to exit the site onto West Avenue, turn southbound and travel to Jensen Avenue.
On-site parking would be provided per the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) standards for parking spa ces.
The Project proposes 204 total parking spaces, including accessible (six spaces), van accessible (two spaces), and clean air/vanpool (16 spaces, 16 chargers) spaces. Ten (10) bicycle parking spaces are also proposed. Truck access would be provided sep arate from automobile access via one (1) point of
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 17 ingress/egress on South West Avenue. Truck unloading and loading is proposed adjacent to the Facility; truck loading is to be located on the western portion of the site and truck unloading is to be located on the eastern portion of the site , accessible by drive aisles located to the south of the site . Tractor trailers on site during loading and unloading will not be permitted to idle their engines. All trucks must be equipped with electrical refrigeration units that will “plug in” at the loading bays.
Frontage improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, and streetlights will be constructed along West Church Avenue and South West Avenue. The project will include the dedication of property for right -of- way purposes along Church Avenue, West Avenue and Teilman Avenues. The project will also be required to install a signal pole with a 150 -watt equivalent LED safety light and an oversize street sign to Public Works Standards at the southeast corner of Church Avenue and West Avenue.
Landscaping
As shown in Figure 2-8, the Project would include landscaping along South West Avenue and West Church Avenue in addition to along the front entrance to the Facility, where a variety of shrubs, trees, and ground cover would be planted consistent with the FMC. Garden walls will be incorporated into the landscaping and design along Church Avenue to screen and mitiga te the loading docks and bays, and act as visual, noise, and wind barriers. Project landscaping (i.e., small, medium, and large trees) would provide approximately 68% shading for the parking lot.
Utilities
Utilities for the site would consist of water, s ewer, electric, cable, gas, and stormwater infrastructure.
Minor trenching and digging activities would be required for the installation of necessary pipelines typical of industrial development. All utility plans would be required to be reviewed and approv ed by the appropriate agency, and/or department to ensure that installation occurs to pertinent codes and regulations. Other infrastructure would include new fire hydrants as required by the City of Fresno Fire Department. Utilities are provided by and managed from a combination of agencies, including the City of Fresno, Fresno Irrigation District (FID), Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and the City’s public utilities department which provides for solid waste collection and sewer collection services. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas within the city of Fresno.
Energy
The Project includes several aspects to strive for energy conservation. 100 percent of kitchen equipment, conveyor systems, and operational support equipment ( i.e. forklifts, etc.) will be electric and powered by solar energy to the maximum extent possible. Regarding transportation, EV char ging stations will be provided, and incentives given to staff who choose to carpool or utilize electric vehicles.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 18
Figure 2-1 Project Regional Location
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 19
Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 20
Figure 2-3 General Plan Land Use Designation Map
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 21
Figure 2-4 Zoning Map
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 22
Figure 2-5 Site Plan of the proposed Project
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 23
Figure 2-6 Conceptual Elevation of the proposed Project
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 24
Figure 2-7 Architectural and Structural Plans of proposed Security Kiosk
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 25
Figure 2-8 Conceptual Floor Plan and Elevation of the proposed Pavilion
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 26
Figure 2-9 Landscaping of the proposed Project
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 27
2.15 Required Project Approvals
The City of Fresno requires the following review, permits, and/or approvals for the proposed Project. Other approvals not listed below may be required as identified through the entitlement process. In addition, o ther agencies may have the authority to issue permits prior to implementation of the Project as listed below.
• General Plan Amendment/Rezone
• Development Permit
• Parcel Merger
• Grading Permit
• Encroachment Permit
• ROW Dedications
• Building Permit
• Sign Permit
• Fresno County Department of Public Health
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board
2.16 Technical Studies
The analysis of the Project throughout this Initial Study relied in part on the technical studies listed below prepared for the Project, as well as other sources, including, but not limited to, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 201731012 prepared for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. Technical studies conducted for this Project are incorporated throughout the IS and provided in the following appendices.
• Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report • Appendix B: Habitat Assessment
• Appendix C: CHRIS Record Search
• Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
2.17 Consultation with California Native American Tribes The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with Cal ifornia Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 28 (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shal l 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 tr eat 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 Mounta in 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.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, including the
Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe, were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No Tribes have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). However, notices were sent on January 21, 2021, to tribes within the region pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52. No responses were received.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 29 3 DETERMINATION
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are checked below would have potentially signif icant impacts resulting from the project . Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The analyses of environmental impacts in SECTION 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.
Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Signific ant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 30 No Impact. This category applies when a project would no t create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the sp ecific project (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3.2 Determination
This Project is within the boundaries of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and was evaluated using the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified by the Ci ty of Fresno on October 26, 2017. The Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (SWFSP PEIR) was tiered from the Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. [2012111015] (MEIR) prepared for the Fresno General Plan and certified in December 2014. The SWFSP PEIR incorporated certain mitigation measures originally contained within the MEIR, and through certification of the SFWSP PEIR, those measures were adopted as part of the SWFSP PEIR. On September 30, 2021, the Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report SCH no. 2019050005 for the Fresno General Plan (GP PEIR) and adopted certain revisions to the Mobility and Transportation Element. Through certification of the GP PEIR, the prior MEIR was superseded as the environmental document for the Fresno General Pla n. However, mitigation measures included in the prior MEIR, which were then incorporated into the SWFSP PEIR and adopted as part of the document, remain in effect for the SWFSP area.
The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study and Negative De claration is tiered from Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 201731012 prepared for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. A copy of the EIR may be reviewed at the City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department as noted above (See Lead Agency). The Project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of EIR SCH No. 201731012 prepared for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.
Pursuant to Publ ic Resources Code Section 21157.1 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15177, this Project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached environmental checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment which was not previously examined in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157 .6(b)(1), the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, as Lead Agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the EIR was certified and that no new information,
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 31 which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the EIR was certified as complete, has become available.
This completed environmental impact checklist form and its associated narrative reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the Project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, che cklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.
All new development activity and many non -physical project s contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this Project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/ or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.
Based upon the evaluation guided by the environmental checklist form, it was determined that there are no foreseeable impacts from the Project that are additional to those identified in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR , and/or impacts which require mitigation measures not included in the EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The completed environmental checklist form indicates whether an impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent in the nature and magnitude of the P roject or may be related to the design and characteristics of the individual project. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an EIR and have been mitigated to the extent feasible. With the Project-specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this Project may have additional significant, direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR.
Both the EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the P roject-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be imposed on this Project.
The Initial Study has concluded that the Project will not res ult in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. The finding is, therefore, made that the Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 32 On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the prop osed 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 requ ired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Approved By:
Will Tackett, Planning Manager Date
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 33 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non -urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 34
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Fresno is located within Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley in central California.
The Project site is located in the southwestern area of the City of Fresno, situated on the southeast corner of South West Avenue and West Church Avenue in Fresno, CA, approximately two (2) miles west of SR-41 and SR-99, and two (2) miles south of SR -180. The site is not near a scenic vista or scenic corridor, nor are there any locally designated highways adjacent to the site. According to the California Scenic Highway Program, the nearest eligible State Scenic Highway (SR-168) is approximately eight (8) miles north of the Project site1. The Project area (i.e., within ½-mile radius of the Project site) generally comprises a mix of existing land uses including industrial (north), open space (south and east), and junk yards (west). Views of large parcels that are vacant and undeveloped can be seen to the north, east, and west from the Project site. Busseto Food’s current operating facility is located north of the Project site at 1090 West Church Avenue. The Project site and its surroundings lack tree cover and vegetation along the roads.
4.1.2 Impact Assessment
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Fresno General Plan and the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan do not identify or designate scenic vistas within the City or Sphere of Influence. However, “Vista Points” and “Scenic Corridors” are identified in the General Plan. Vista Points are situated near and along the San Joaquin River, which are more than nine (9) miles north of the Project site. Kearney Boulevard, approximately 1 mile north of the Project site , is on the Local Register of Historic Places and is a designated Scenic Collector per the Fresno General P lan. According to the California Scenic Highway Program, the nearest scenic highway (SR-168) is approximately eight (8) miles northeast of the Project site. Because these scenic vistas are not within view of the subject site and because the Project site is vacant and undevelop ed and does not contain any visual features or historic resources,, the Project would not adversely affect scenic vistas or scenic highways, thus there is no impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock out - croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
1 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on October 1, 2021, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 35 No Impact. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the city of Fresno and the closest eligible scenic highway (SR- 168) is approximately eight (8) miles from the Project site. As such, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain any structures or trees. As a result, the proposed Project would have no impact on scenic resources. 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). I f the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an urbanized area surrounded by light industrial uses and open space. The Project proposes a two (2) -story, 477,470 -sf. Facility that would reach a maximum height of 37 -ft and its exterior would consist of concrete, stucco, and metal in addition to exterior lighting. Through the entitlement review process, the Projec t is subject to compliance with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality including but not limited to the California Building Code, Fresno General Plan, and Fresno Municipal Code (FMC). Per the FMC Section 15-23 Landscape, a minimum of 15-feet buffer yard is required for proposed industrial use adjacent to other uses. General Plan objectives and policies on individual projects include streetscape plans for properties fronting streets and site and building design, which would be implemented through the review process. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the Project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are associated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, cars, and trucks). Development of the Project site would incrementally increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting, and vehicular headlights. Such sources could create adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the area.
Project construction would also introduce light and glare resulting from construction activities that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Although construction activi ties are anticipated to occur primarily during daylight hours, it is possible that some activities could occur during dusk or early evening hours (Section 10-109 of the FMC permits construction work to take place between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on any day exc ept Sunday, for work that is accomplished pursuant to a building permit). Construction during these time periods could result in light and glare from construction vehicles or equipment. However, construction would occur primarily during daylight
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 36 hours and would be temporary in nature. Once construction is completed, any light and glare from these activities would cease to occur.
The Project would be required to comply with the General Plan and Fresno Municipal Code, which contain specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions intended to prevent light and glare impacts. Compliance with Title 24 lighting requirements would reduce impacts related to nighttime light. The lighting requirements cover outdoor spaces including regulations for mounted luminaires (i.e., high efficacy, motion sensor controlled, time clocks, energy management control systems, etc.). As such, conditions imposed on the Project by the City pursuant to Title 24 would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant impact.
Further, Mitigation Measures MEIR AES-1, AE-3, AE-4, and AES-5 identified in Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR remain applicable to the Project (which are consistent with the General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures, noted below), and would mitigate new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views:
Mitigation Measure AES -1: Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences. (PEIR Mitigation Measure AES 4.1)
Mitigation Measure AES -3: Lighting systems for non- residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low-intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur. (PEIR Mitigation Measure AES 4.3) Mitigation Measure AES -4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 - foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets that have an av erage light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater. (PEIR Mitigation Measure AES 4.4)
Mitigation Measure AES-5: Materials used on building façades shall be non-reflective. (PEIR Mitigation Measure AES 4.5)
As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 37 The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the aesthetic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non -
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 38
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located within the city limits of Fresno . The City of Fresno GIS Data Viewing Application describes the existing land use of the subject site as open space/agriculture .2 The Project site is currently zoned RS-5 – Residential Single-Family, Medium Density, and has a planned land use designation of Residential – Medium Density (5.0-12 du/acre). As such, the site is planned for urbanized uses. The Project site does not contain any agricultural lands or operations nor forestry resources such as forest land or timberland.
The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland.” Maps are updated every two years.
According to the Farmland Monito ring and Mapping Program , California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is categorized as Prime Farmland in 2018. 3 Prime Farmland is defined as “Farmland with 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. ” 4 However, the Project site has not been used for agricultural operations within the past five (5) years as shown in aerial imagery.
The Fresno General Plan Program EIR, adopted in September of 2021 , contemplated the conversion of farmland within the Fresno Planning Area , inclusive of the Project site, to non - agricultural uses and determined the impact to be significant and unavoidable , with no feasible mitigation measures available. Objectives and policies regarding farmland in the Fresno General Plan do not apply to the proposed Project since they are targeted at preserving agricultural land outside the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Consequently, the City of Fresno issued a Statement
2 City of Fresno. (2021). City of Fresno GIS Data Viewing Application. Accessed on September 16, 2021, https://cityoffresno.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dbd9813b2fa74382b3096b9613e7470d 3 California Department of Conservation. (2018). California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on September 16, 2021, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
4 California Department of Conservation. “Important Farmland Categories.” Accessed on September 16, 2021, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 39 of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact, demonstrating that the environmental impacts are “acceptable” due to the project benefits and considerations5.
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Williamson Act) allows loc al governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value.
The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 years and automatically renews upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite. The Project site nor the surrounding properties are subject to the Williamson Act Contract.
4.2.2 Impact Assessment
a) Convert Prime Farml and, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farm land Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is located on land that is designated as “Prime Farmland” (See Figure 4-1). However, the Project site has not been used for agricultural operations within the past five (5) years, which would cause its disqualification as Prime Farmland according to the definition provided by the Department of Conservation: “Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date .” Additionally, as described in the environmental settings, the Fresno General Plan PEIR contemplated the conversion of farmland within the Fresno Plannin g Area, inclusive of the Project site, to non -agricultural uses and determined the impact to be significant and unavoidable and issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations. For these reasons, the development of the Project site to a non -agricultural use would have a less than significant impact.
5 Council of the City of Fresno. (2020). HEARING to consider the adoption of Plan Amendment Application No. P19- 04226 and related Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2019050005.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 40
Figure 4-1 Farmland Category Map
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for or located within an area planned for agricultural uses and is not under Williamson Act contract. Thus, the Project would result in no impact. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land or timber land and it is not zoned for forestry or timberland uses. As a result, the Project would have no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land or timberlan d and it is not zoned for forestry or timberland uses. As a result, the Project would have no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 41 No impact. The project site is in an area planned for urbanized, non -agricultural uses within the city limits of Fresno. Additionally, the site is not zoned or designated for forestry uses, nor is it planned for forestry uses. For these reasons, the proposed Project would have no impact.
4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 42
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment was prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. on October 14, 2021. The report and supporting tables are provided in Appendix A. The environmental setting, methodology, and assessment are incorporated herein.
The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in eight counties including:
Fresno, Kern, (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.
Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human -related (anthropogenic) and natural (non-anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 43 anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial- based sources as well as on - and off-road mobile sources.
Activities that tend to increase mobile activity include increases in population, increases in general traffic activity (including automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and rail), urban sprawl (which will increase commuter driving distances), and general local land management practices as they pertain to modes of commuter transportation. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.
Climate Topography
The following information is excerpted from the most recent version of the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015a).
The SJVAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Basin averages over 260 sun ny days per year. The SJVAB is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the SJVAB form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south -southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
Generally, the temperature of air decreases with height, creating a gradient from warmer air near the ground to cooler air at elevation. This gradient of cooler air over warm air is known as the environmental lapse rate. Inversions occur when warm air sits over cooler air, trapping the cooler air near the ground. These inversions trap pollutants from dispersing vertically and the mountains surrounding the San Joaquin Valley trap the pollutants from dispersing horizontally. Strong temperature inversions occur throughout the SJVAB in the summer, fall, and winter . Daytime temperature inversions occur at elevations of 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the San Joaquin Valley floor during the summer and at 500 to 1,000 feet during the winter. The result is a relatively high concentration of air pollution in the valley during inversion episodes. These inversions cause haziness, which in addition to moisture may include suspended dust, a variety of chemical aerosols emitted from vehicles, particulates from wood stoves, and other pollutants. In the winter, these
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 44 conditions can lead to carbon monoxide “hotspots” along heavily traveled roads and at busy intersections. During summer’s longer daylight hours, stagnant air, high temperatures, and plentiful sunshine provide the conditions and energy for the photochemical reaction betwee n reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which results in the formation of ozone.
Because of the prevailing daytime winds and time -delayed nature of ozone, concentrations are highest in the southern portion of the Basin. Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, while winter air quality impacts tend to be localized and can consist of (but are not exclusive to) odors from agricultural operations; soot or smoke around residential, agricultural, and haza rd-reduction wood burning; or dust near mineral resource recovery operations.
Criteria Air Pollutants
For the protection of public health and welfare, the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) required that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various pollutants. These pollutants are referred to as "criteria" pollutants because the EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient air. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time, such as one hour, eight hours, 24 hours, or one year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. Standards established for the pro tection of human health are referred to as primary standards; whereas standards established for the prevention of environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. The FCAA allows states to adopt additional or more health -protective standards. The air quality regulatory framework and ambient air quality standards are discussed in greater detail later in this report.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table 4-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
Ozone
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) —
Same as Primary
Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate Matter
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m3 —
Fine Particulate
Matter
24 Hour — 35 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) —
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 45 Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) —
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — —
Nitrogen Dioxide
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Lead
30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Rolling 3-Month
Average — 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility-Reducing
Particles 8 Hour See Footnote 1
No National Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) —
Notes:
1 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016c
The following provides a summary discussion of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants of primary concern. In general, primary pollutants are directed emitted into the atmosphere, and secondary pollutants are formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a reactive gas consisting of three atoms of oxygen. Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects th e earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 46 Ozone, a colorless gas which is odorless at ambient levels, is the chief component of urban smog.
Ozone is not directly emitted as a pollutant but is formed in the atmosphere when hydrocarbon and NOX precursor emissions react in the presence of sunlight. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in ozone formation. Generally, low wind speeds or stagnant air coupled with war m temperatures and cloudless skies provide the optimum conditions for ozone formation. As a result, summer is generally the peak ozone season. Because of the reaction time involved, peak ozone concentrations often occur far downwind of the precursor emissi ons. Therefore, ozone is a regional pollutant that often impacts a large area (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2001).
Sources of precursor gases number in the thousands and include common sources such as consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical s olvents, and combustion byproducts of various fuels. Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NO
X most commonly originate from motor
vehicles, as well as commercial and industrial uses.
Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are agg ravated by exposure to high ozone levels. High levels of ozone may negatively affect immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Long- term exposure to ozone is linked to aggravation of asthma and is likely to be one of many causes of asthma development. Long- term exposures to higher concentrations of ozone may also be linked to permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung development in children. People most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with certain genetic characteristics, and people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from ozone exposure (EPA 2021a).
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases, including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ROGs. ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by CARB. Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations. VOCs are like ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal law.
Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.
The primary health effects related to hydrocarbons stem from ozone (see discussion above). High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 47 of available oxygen through displacement. There are no separate national or California ambient air quality standards for ROG. Carcinogenic forms of ROG, such as benzene, are also considered toxic air contaminants (TACs).
Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of nitrogen (NOX).” NO2 is the component of greatest interest and the indicator for the larger group of NOXS.
It forms quickly from emissions from cars, trucks, and buses, powerplants, and off- road equipment. NOX is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid as well as toxic organic nitrates.
NOX is emitted from solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures. Mobile sources (including on -road and off -road vehicles) and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers, constitute a majority of the statewide NOX emissions. To a lesser extent, area- wide sou rces, such as residential heaters, gas stoves, and managed burning and disposal, also contribute to total state -wide NOX emissions (CARB 2010).
NOX is also linked to the formation of ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution (see discussion above for ozone and particulate pollution for additional discussion of health-related impacts).
Direct inhalation of NOX can cause a wide range of health effects. NOX can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Short- term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of NO2 may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with pre -existing respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children. Long-term exposures to NO2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause irreversible lung damage.
Other health effects are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation.
Chronic exposure may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOX can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to the production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOX can also impair visibility.
NO
X also contributes to a wide range of environmental effects both directly and indirectly when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication (a condition that promotes excessive algae growth, which can lead to a severe depletion of dissolved oxygen and increased levels of toxins that are harmful to aquatic life).
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 48 Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased lev els of soluble aluminum, which is toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates low pH conditions and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. NO
X also contributes to haze and visibility impairment
(EPA 2019a, CARB 2016a).
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of substances that includes elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, sulfates, and organic compounds; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. PM 2.5 includes fine particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller and is a subset of PM 10. These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks, or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere of chemicals such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industries, and automobil es. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution in the country (EPA 2019a, CARB 2016a).
Area-wide sources account for about 65 and 83% of the statewide emissions of directly emitted PM
2.5 and PM10, respectively. The major area- wide sources of PM 2.5 and PM10 are fugitive dust, especially dust from unpaved and paved roads, agricultural operations, and construction and demolition. Sources of PM 10 include crushing or grinding operations, and dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads. Sources of PM 2.5 include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes.
Exhaust emissions from mobile sources contribute only a very small portion of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM10 emissions but are a major source of the VOC and NOX that form secondary particles (CARB 2013).
PM2.5 and PM10 particles are small enough to be inhaled and lodged in the deepest parts of the lung where they evade the respiratory system’s natural defenses. Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseas es; heart and lung disease; and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. PM
2.5 and PM10 can aggravate respiratory disease and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 49 Sensitive populations, including children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis are espe cially vulnerable to the effect of PM 10.
Non-health-related effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. CO is emitted by mobile and stationary sources because of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive.
CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in blood, than oxygen, thereby reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected but only at higher levels of exposure.
Exposure to CO can cause chest pain in heart patients, headaches, and reduced mental alertness.
At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and, with prolonged enclosed exposure, death.
Very high levels of CO are not likely to occ ur outdoors. However, when CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability for getting oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where the heart needs more oxygen than usual. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina (EPA 2019a).
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur (SOX).” It is a colorless, irritating gas with a “rotten egg” smell that is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The largest source of SO2 in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial facilities. Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore; nat ural sources such as volcanoes; and locomotives, ships and other vehicles and heavy equipment that burn fuel with a high sulfur content. State and national ambient air quality standards for SO2 are designed to protect against exposure to the entire group of sulfur oxides (SOX). SO2 is the component of greatest concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group of gaseous sulfur oxides.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 50 High concentrations of SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are ac tive outdoors. Short- term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels during moderate activity may result in breathing difficulties that can be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer term exposures to high concentrations of SO2 in conjunction with high levels of particulate matter include aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lungs’ defenses. The subgroups of the population that may be affected under these conditions include individuals with heart or lung disease, as well as the elderly and children.
Together, SO2 and NOX are the major precursors to acidic deposition (acid rain), which is associated with the acidification of soils, lakes, and streams and accelerated corrosion of buildings and monuments. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a significant health concern, and a main contributor to poor visibility.
Lead
Lead (Pb) is a natur ally occurring bluish -gray metal found in small amounts in the earth's crust.
Lead can be found in all parts of our environment. Much of it comes from human activities including burning fossil fuels, mining, and manufacturing. Lead has many different uses. It is used in the production of batteries, ammunition, metal products (solder and pipes), and devices to shield X-rays. Because of health concerns, lead from paints and ceramic products, caulking, and pipe solder has been dramatically reduced in recent ye ars. The use of lead as an additive to gasoline was banned in 1996 in the United States.
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. The effects of lead are the same regardless of the path of exposure. Lead can affect almost every organ and system in your body. The main target for lead toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Long-term exposure of adults can result in decreased performance in some tests that measure functions of the nervous system. It may also cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles.
Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure, particularly in middle-aged and older people and can cause anemia. Exposure to high lead levels can severely d amage the brain and kidneys in adults or children and ultimately cause death. In pregnant women, high levels of exposure to lead may cause miscarriage. High level exposure in men can damage the organs responsible for sperm production.
Exposure to lead is m ore dangerous for young and unborn children. Unborn children can be exposed to lead through their mothers. Harmful effects include premature births, smaller babies,
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 51 decreased mental ability in the infant, learning difficulties, and reduced growth in young children.
These effects are more common if the mother or baby was exposed to high levels of lead. Some of these effects may persist beyond childhood (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry [ATSDR] 2007).
Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. H2S occurs naturally and is also produced by human activities. H2S occurs naturally in crude petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs. It can also result during bacterial decomposition of sulfur -containing organic substances. Emissions of H2S associated with human activities including various industrial activities, such as oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, food processing, and confined animal feeding operations.
Studies in humans suggest that the respiratory tract and nervous system are the most sensitive targets of H2S toxicity. Exposure to low concentrations of H2S may cause irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat. It may also cause difficulty in breathing for some asthmat ics. Respiratory distress or arrest has been observed in people exposed to very high concentrations of H2S. Exposure to low concentrations of H2S may cause headaches, poor memory, tiredness, and balance problems.
Brief exposures to high concentrations of H2S can cause loss of consciousness. In most cases, the person appears to regain consciousness without any other effects. However, in some individuals, there may be permanent or long -term effects such as headaches, poor attention span, poor memory, and poor motor function. H2S is extremely hazardous in high concentrations, especially in enclosed spaces. In some instances, exposure to high concentrations can cause death (ATSDR 2007b).
Other Pollutants
The State of California has established air quality standards for some pollutants not addressed by Federal standards. The CARB has established State standards for hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. Below is a summary of these pollutants and a description of the pollutan ts’ physical properties, health and other effects, sources, and the extent of the problems.
Sulfates
Sulfates (SO4) are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum- derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to SO2 during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 52 compounds in the atmospher e. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features.
The CARB sulfates standard is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory symptoms. Effects of su lfate exposure at levels above the standard include a decrease in ventilator function, aggravation of asthmatic symptoms, and an increased risk of cardio- pulmonary disease. Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility, and, because they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property.
Visibility Reducing Particles
Visibility Reducing Particles are a mixture of suspended particulate matter consisting of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. The standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range.
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride is a colorless gas that does not occur naturally. It is formed when other substances such as trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloro -ethylene are broken down. Vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride which is used to make a variety of plastic products, including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging materials.
Odors
Typically, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from the psychological (i.e., irritation, anger, or a nxiety) to the physiological, including circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache.
The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor and in fact an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 53 Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor.
For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
Neither the state nor the federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The SJVAPCD does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 410 2, Nuisance. Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air, but due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which advers e health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not consider ed “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are thus not subject to National or California ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively). Instead, the EPA and the CARB regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology (BACT) to limit emissions. In conjunction with District rules, these federal and state statutes and r egulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national levels, the EPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology -based so urce-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. The following
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 54 provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects:
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel Particulate Matt er (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the CARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on -road diesel- fueled vehicles contribute approximately 42% of the statewide total, with an additional 55% attributed to oth er mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources, contributing about 3% of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (CARB 2013).
In October 2000, the CARB issued a report entitled: Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM by 85% by the year 2020, in comparison to year 2000 baseline emissions. The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel to protect new, and very effective, advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. Wh en fully implemented, the DRPP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, the CARB continues to promote the use of alternative fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (CARB 2013).
In comparison to year 2010 inventory of statewide DPM emissions, CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be reduced by more than 50%.
DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (“soot”, also called black carbon) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer -causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3 -butadiene. Diesel exhaust also contains gaseous pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx. NOx emissions from diesel engines are important because they can undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere leading to formation of PM2.5 and ozone.
In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen accounting for an estimated 70% of the total known cancer risks in California. DPM is estimated to increase statewide cancer risk by 520 cancers per million residents exposed over an estimated 70 -year
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 55 lifetime. Non- cancer health effects associated with exposure to DPM include premature death, exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, and decreased lung function in children. Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. I n studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravat e chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks (CARB 2016b).
Individuals most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects of DPM are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who often have chronic health problems. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to DPM (CARB 2016b). In addition to its health effects, DPM significantly contributes to haze and reduced visibility.
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non -cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings constructed prior to its ban for use in buildings in 1977. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil disturbing activities in areas with deposits present.
Valley Fever
Valley Fever is an infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. About 10,000 U.S. cases are reported each year, mostly from Arizona and California. Valley fever can be misdiagnosed because its symptoms are like those of other illnesses.
The fungus that causes Valley fever, Coccidioides, is found in the southwestern United States, parts of Mexico and Central America, and parts of South America. The fungus grows naturally and is endemic in many areas along the southwestern region of Fresno County. People can get this
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 56 infection by breathing in fungal spores from the air, especially when the wind blows the soil with the fungal spores into the air, or the dirt is moved by human activity. About 40% of the peopl e who come into contact with the fungal spores will develop symptoms that may require medical treatment and the symptoms will not go away on their own. Some people may develop a more severe infection, especially those with compromised immune systems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2020).
Attainment Status
The United States EPA and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of d eviation from standards.
Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8 -hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual standard for PM2.5 is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The current attainment designations for the SJVAB are shown in Table 4-2. The SJVAB is designated
as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 4-2 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight Hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead No Designation/Classification Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 57 Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Notes:
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009). e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010).
Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.
Source: SJVAPCD 2021
Ambient Air Quality
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the Project. Table 4-3 summarizes published monitoring data for the most recent three -year period available from the nearest monitoring station at 4706 E. Drummond Street , Fresno, CA approximately 4.62 miles east of the project site. The data shows that during the past few years, the SJVAB has exceeded the ozone and PM10 standards.
Table 4-3 Ambient Air Quality Summary
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2017 2018 2019
Ozone
1 Hour
Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.125 0.119 0.099
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 6 1
8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.103 0.097 0.080
Days > State Standard (0.070 ppm) 31 34 11
Days > National Standard (0.070
ppm) 29 32 10
Days > National Standard (0.075
ppm) 17 15 2
Carbon
Monoxide 8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) X X X
Days > State Standard (9.0 ppm) X X X
Days > National Standard (9.0 ppm) X X X
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual Annual Average (ppm) ID 95 ID
1 Hour
Max 1 Hour (ppm) 64.7 75.9 42.3
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur dioxide
Annual Annual Average (ppm) X X X
24 Hour
Max 24 Hour (ppm) X X X
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) X X X
Inhalable coarse
particles (PM10)
Annual
(National)
Annual Average (µg/m
3) 44.0 45.8 38.6
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 58 Annual
(State)
Annual Average (µg/m3) 44.2 45.7 39.6
24 hours
24 Hour (µg/m3)
National 115.6 152.2 175.6
24 Hour (µg/m3)
State 120.5 154.8 181.3
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 17 19 13
Days > National Standard (150
µg/m
3) 0 0 1
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual
(National)
Annual Average (µg/m3) X X X
Annual
(State)
Annual Average (µg/m3) X X X
24 Hour
24 Hour (µg/m3)
National X X X
24 Hour (µg/m3)
State X X X
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) X X X
Notes:
> = exceed
ppm = parts per million
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
a = The Federal 1-hour Ozone Standard was revoked in June 2005; California retained a 1 hour Ozone Standard ID = insufficient data
X = No data available because concentrations are no longer monitored max = maximum
Bold = exceedance
State Standard = CAAQS
National Standard = NAAQS
Sulfur dioxide is reported on a statewide basis as it is no longer monitored locally Sources: CARB 2018a
The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in several ways. The clearest in comparison is to the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount the standard is exceeded. Based on the air quality monitoring data, between 2 and 34 unhealthy ozone air days and up to 19 days with unhealthy PM10 levels.
Unhealthy air quality levels can pose a risk to those most sensitive to air pollution such as the elderly, asthmatics, children, etc. The higher the air pollution levels rise the greater the population it affects.
Local Sources of Air Pollution
The Project’s site is located in a predominately urban setting wit h agricultural and industrial uses surrounding the site and residential uses to the west. The main sources of air pollution are mobile
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 59 sources traveling along the nearby roadways that surround the Project site. Nearby sources of air pollution include emissions from vehicles on West Church Avenue and S. West Avenue as well as industrial emissions from industrial sources northeast of the project site.
Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SJVAPCD 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 project site is located within 1,000 feet from existing sensitive receptors that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction and operational periods. The nearest sensitive receptors are residents occupying the single -family houses approximately 450 feet west of the project site.
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Air quality within the project area is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation.
Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At the federal level, the EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs.
The EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.
Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA required the EPA to establish NAAQS, and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table 4-4.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 60 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the EPA established the NESHAPs. These are technology -based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Among these sources include asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). NESHAPs include requirements pertaining to the inspection, notification, handling, and disposal of ACBMs associated with the demolition and renovation of structures.
State
California Air Resources Board
The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts), establishing California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel and engine used. The CAAQS are summarized in
Table 4-1.
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area -wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5% annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3 -year periods, in district -wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.
California State Implementation Plan
The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 61 deadlines established by the CAA. The EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.
State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the EPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register.
Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tan ner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxi cs Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB designates a substance as a TAC.
Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.
Assembly Bill 617
In response to AB 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. The Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also includes new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout the State.
Portable Equipment Registration Program
Owners or operators of portable engines and certain other types of equipment can register th eir units under the CARB’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP). PERP allows registered equipment to be operated throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts. To qualify, equipment must meet eligibility requirements, including applicable emissions standards.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Regulations
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 62 CARB has adopted two Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) which regulates the control of Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) associated with construction, surfacing, grading, mining, and quarrying activities. The NCUAQMD is responsible for enforcing Asbestos ATCMs. There are no known likely areas of NOA in the Project area (USGS 2011).
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applica ble standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most s evere of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The EPA designates areas for O
3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub -categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” As discussed previously, the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is nonattainment for State ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SJVAB, within which the proposed project is located. Responsibilities of the SJVAPCD include, but are not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 63 concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution and responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA.
SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations
The SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may apply to projects that will occur during buildout of the project include but are not limited to the following:
Rule 2010 – Permits Required . The purpose of this rule is to require any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate. This rule also explains the posting requirements for a Permit to Operate and the illegality of a person willfully altering, defacing, forging, counterfeiting or falsifying any Permit to Operate.
Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the following:
• The review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and to provide mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which Authorities to Construct such sources may be granted, without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards; and
• No net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors.
Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This rule incorporates the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Rule 4102 – Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 64 Rule 4623 – Storage of Organic Liquids . The purpose of this rule is to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the storage of organic liquids.
Rule 4624 – Transfer of Organic Liquids . The purpose of this rule is to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the transfer of organic liquids.
Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.
Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rule 8011 -8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out , etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.
Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from growth on the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite District -administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project must comply with Rule 9510 because it would develop more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space.
CEQA
The SJVAPCD has three roles under CEQA:
Lead Agency: responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the District where the District has primary approval authority over the project.
Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a Responsible Agency is more limited than a Lead Agency; having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to approve, carry out, or finance. The District defers to the Lead Agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits unless no document is prepared by the Lead Agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The District comments on documents prepared by Lead Agencies to ensure that District concerns are addressed.
Commenting Agency: The District reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies (such as the project).
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 65 The SJVAPCD also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses. The result of this guidance as well as state regulations to control air pollution is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:
1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs.
The general plan is the primary long-range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.
2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1. When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan was adopted on December 18, 2014, and serves as a forward - looking, comprehensive, and long -range plan. The General Plan includes the following policies related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project.
Objective RC-4. In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
RC-4-a Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measure in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 66 RC-4-b Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
RC-4-c Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by the SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
Community Emissions Reduction Program South Central Fresno The California legislature developed AB 617 in response to concerns over localized impacts of air pollutions in disadvantaged communities throughout the state. AB 617 is a statewide effort to monitor and reduce air pollution, and improve public health, in communities that experience disproportionate burdens from exposure to air pollutants through new community -focused and community-driven actions. South Central Fresno was prioritized by SJVAPCD and selected by CARB to receive clean air resources newly available under AB 617.
The Community Emission Reduction Program identifies the sources of pollution that are a concern to the community and possible strategies to reduce pollution sources from these areas. The top community sources identified are heavy duty trucks, high polluting and idle cars, residential wood burning, land use/industrial development, illegal burning, and industria l processes (SJVAPCD 2019b).
4.3.3 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
The following modeling parameters and assumptions were used to generate criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Busseto Development Project.
Criteria Air Pollutant and GHG Model Selection
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify poten tial criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.
CalEEMod quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Further, CalEEMod identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from measures chosen by the user.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 67 CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the var ious California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions.
CalEEMod is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations wh ere an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act documents, conducting pre -project planning, and, verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc.
CalEEMod version 2020 .4.0 was used to estimate construction and operational impacts of the proposed project.
Air Pollutants and GHGs Assessed
Criteria Pollutants Assessed
The following criteria air pollutants were assessed in this analysis: reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO X), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5). Note that the proposed project would emit ozone precursors ROG and NO X. However, the proposed project would not directly emit ozone since it is formed in the atmosphere during the photochemical reaction of ozone precursors.
GHGs Assessed
This analysis was restricted to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxid e (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3). The proposed project would generate a variety of GHGs, including several defined by AB 32 such as CO2, CH4, and N2O.
GHG emissions associated with the proposed project construction, as well as future operations were estimated using CO
2 equivalent (CO 2e) emissions as a proxy for all GHG emissions.
Construction GHG emissions were amortized over the lifetime of the proposed project. In order to obtain the CO 2e, an individual GHG is multiplied by its Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP designates on a pound for pound basis the potency of the GHG compared to CO2.
Assumptions
Construction Modeling Assumptions
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 68 Land Use
Table 4-4 provides a summary of the land use inputs included in the CalEEMod modeling.
Table 4-4 CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary Table for the Proposed Project Project
Component
CalEEMod Land Use
Type
Land Use
Unit
Amount
(Size)
Land Use
Size Metric
Total Square
Footage
(Building
Square Footage
is Used for
Buildings)
Land Use
Acreage
Industrial
Building General Heavy Industry 477.47 KSF 477,470 10.96 AC Parking Parking Lot 190 Spaces 76,000 1.71 AC
Notes:
KSF = 1,000 square feet
AC = acre
Construction Schedule
The proposed project would require various tasks including site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. Table 4-5 shows the anticipated construction schedule. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis will represent a “worst- case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements.
Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moved to later years or is phased over multiple years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. The site-specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction.
Table 4-5 Project Construction Schedule
Construction Task Start Date End Date Workdays
Site Preparation 2/1/2022 2/28/2022 20
Grading/Excavation 3/1/2022 3/31/2022 23
Drainage/Utilities/Trenching 3/1/2022 3/31/2022 23
Foundations/Concrete Pour 4/1/2022 4/30/2022 21
Building Construction 5/1/2022 1/16/2023 186
Paving 11/1/2022 1/16/2023 55
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A). Construction schedule provided by the Project Applicant.
Construction Equipment
The off- road equipment fleet for construction were generated using default values from CalEEMod. CalEEMod generates construction fleets for construction activities based on the size of
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 69 the construction areas. Construction equipment for each construction ac tivity by phase is shown in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6 Project Construction Equipment
Construction Task Equipment Type
Pieces of
Equipment
Usage
(hours/day) Horsepower
Load
Factor
Fuel
Type
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 247 0.40 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 Diesel
Grading/Excavation
Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 Diesel
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 Diesel
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.40 Diesel
Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 Diesel
Drainage/Utilities
/Trenching
Excavators 2 8 158 0.38 Diesel
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 Diesel
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.40 Diesel
Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 Diesel
Foundations/
Concrete Pour
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 Diesel
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 Diesel
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 Diesel
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 Diesel
Forklifts 3 8 89 0.20 Diesel
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 Diesel
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 Diesel
Paving
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 Diesel
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 Diesel
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 Diesel
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A)
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 70 Vehicle Trips
Off-site construction emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5). Table 4-7 provides a summary of the construction-related vehicle trips. The number of daily worker trips were based on the Project Applicant’s estimatio n of the average number of daily workers per phase.
CalEEMod default values were used to estimate the number of vendor vehicle trips during the building construction phase. The number of vendor trips during the Building Construction phase is derived from a study conducted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) as per the CalEEMod defaults. The SMAQMD trip survey during construction counted cement and water trucks as vendor trips (instead of counting them as off- road vehicle trips) and these trip rates were incorporated into the calculations for the Building Construction phase. The Project Applicant estimates that during the paving phase of construction, 67 cement trucks would travel to the project site a day. The cement tru cks were included as vendor truck trips during the paving phase of construction.
Construction would not require excavation or demolition and, as a result, hauling trips are not required during the grading or demolition phases of construction.
The fleet mix for worker trips is light-duty passenger vehicles to light-duty trucks. The vendor trips fleet mix is composed of a mixture of medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks. CalEEMod default trip lengths for a project in Fresno County and an urban setting were used for the worker (10.8 miles), vendor (7.3 miles), and hauling trips (20 miles).
Table 4-7 Construction Vehicle Trips
Construction Task
Worker Trips per
Day
Vendor Trips per
Day
Total Haul Truck
Trips
Site Preparation 20 0 0
Grading/Excavation 50 0 0
Drainage/Utilities/Trenching 50 0 0
Foundations/Concrete Pour 50 0 0
Building Construction 150 91 0
Paving 40 67 0
Notes:
No hauling trucks anticipated as there is no demolition, and all grading will be balanced on the Project site.
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A).
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 71 Operational Modeling Assumptions
Operational emissions are those emissions that occur during operation of the proposed project.
The sources are summarized below.
Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the automobiles that would travel to and from the proposed project site. The trip generation was based on the June 2021 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by JLB Traffic based on the Institute of Engineer’s (ITE) trip generation rates for Land Use Code 110, General Light Industry.
Trip Lengths
The CalEEMod default round trip lengths for an urban setting in Fresno County were used in this analysis. Trip lengths are for primary trips. Trip purposes are primary, diverted, and pass-by trips.
Diverted trips take a slightly different path than a primary trip. The CalEEMod default rates for percentages of p rimary, diverted, and pass -by trips were used. The emissions estimate also considers the internal capture rates, consistent with the project -specific trip generation. Internal capture rates account for vehicle trips that visit the project site for the purp ose of visiting more than land use within the project.
Vehicle Fleet Mix
The vehicle fleet mix is defined as the mix of motor vehicle classes active during the operation of the proposed project. Emission factors are assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle class, speed, and fuel use (gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles). CalEEMod default fleet mix was used for this analysis.
Area Sources
Consumer Products
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications that emit ROG during their product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. The default CalEEMod values were used for this project.
Architectural Coatings (Painting)
Paints release VOC emissions. The build ings would be repainted on occasion. CalEEMod defaults for the wall painting size and VOC paint concentration were used for this purpose.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 72 Landscaping Emissions
CalEEMod will estimate a total of 180 days for which landscaping equipment would be used to estimate potential emissions for the proposed project.
Indirect Emissions
For GHG emissions, CalEEMod contains calculations to estimate indirect GHG emissions. Indirect emissions are emissions where the location of consumption or activity is different from w here actual emissions are generated. For example, electricity would be consumed at the proposed project site; however, emissions associated with producing that electricity are generated off- site at a power plant. Since the electricity can vary greatly based on locations, the user should override these values if they have more specific information regarding their specific water supply and treatment.
Energy Use
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would provide electricity and natural gas services to the project site. PG&E provides emission factors for the electricity it provides to customers for its energy portfolio that is used to estimate project emissions. The utilities will be required to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. T hese reductions have been accounted within CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.
The emissions associated with the building electricity and natural gas usage (non -hearth) were estimated based on the land use type and size. The electricity energy use is in units of k ilowatt hours per size metric for each land use type. Natural gas use is in units of one thousand British Thermal Units per size metric for each land use type.
Other Indirect Emissions (Water Use, Wastewater Use, and Solid Waste) CalEEMod includes calculations for indirect GHG emissions for electricity consumptions, water consumption, and solid waste disposal. For water consumption, CalEEMod calculates embedded energy (e.g., treatment, conveyance, distribution) associated with providing each gallon of potable water to the project. For solid waste disposal, GHG emissions are associated with the disposal of solid waste generated by the proposed project into landfills. CalEEMod default data were used for inputs associated with solid waste.
Fugitive Dust
Construction
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 73 Fugitive dust would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. Most of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from the project site. Therefore, adherence to Regulation VIII would be required during construction of the proposed project. Regulation VIII would require fugitive dust control measures that are consistent with best management practices (BMPs) established by the SJVAPCD to reduce the proposed project’s construction -generated fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level.
Visible Dust Emissions may not exceed 20% opacity during periods when soil is being disturbed by equipment or by wind at any time. Visible dust emissions opacity of 20% means dust that would obstruct an observer’s view of an object by 20%. District inspectors are state certified to evaluate visible emissions. Dust control may be achieved by applying water before/during earthwork and onto unpaved traffic areas, phasing work to limit dust, and setting up wind fences to limit windblown dust.
Soil Stabilization is required at regulated construction sites after normal working hours and on weekends and holidays. This requirement also applies to inactive construction areas such as phased projects where disturbed land is left unattended. Applying water to form a visible crust on the soil and restricting vehicle access are often effective for short -term stabilization of disturbed surface areas. Long -term methods including applying dust suppressants and establishing vegetative cover.
Carryout and Track out occur when materials from emptied or loaded vehicles falls onto a paved surface or shoulder of a public road or when materials adhere to vehicle tires and are deposited onto a paved surface or shoulder of a public road. Should either occur, the material must be cleaned up at least daily, and immediately if it extends more than 50 feet from the exit point onto a paved road. The appropriate clean -up methods require the complete removal and cleanup of mud and dirt from the paved surface and shoulder. Using a blower device or dry sweeping with any mechanical device other than a PM10 -efficient street sweeper is a violation. Larger construction sites, or sites with a high amount of traffic on one or more days, must prevent carryout and track out from occurring by installing gravel pads, grizzlies, wheel washers, paved interior roads, or a combination thereof at each exit point from the site. In many cases, cleaning up track out with water is also prohibited as it may lead to plugged storm drains. Prevention is the best method.
Unpaved Access and Haul Roads , as well as unpaved vehicle and equipment traffic areas at construction sites must have dust control. Speed limit signs limiting vehicle speed to 15 mph or less at construction sites must be posted every 500 feet on uncontrolled and unpaved roads.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 74 Storage Piles and Bulk Materials have handling, storage, and transportation requirements that include applying water when handling materials, wetting or covering stored materials, and installing wind barriers to limit VD E. Also, limiting vehicle speeds, loading haul trucks with a freeboard of six inches or greater along with applying water to the top of the load, and covering the cargo compartments are effective measures for reducing VDE and carryout from vehicles transporting bulk materials.
Demolition activities require the application of water to the exterior of the buildings and to unpaved surfaces where materials may fall. A Dust Control Plan will be required for large demolition projects. Consider all structures slated for demolition as possibly being regulated due to potential asbestos, per District Rule 4002 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Contact the District well before starting because a 10 working -day notice will likely be required before a demolition can begin.
Dust Control Plans identify the dust sources and describe the dust control measures that will be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity for the duration of the project.
Owners or operators are requ ired to submit plans to the District at least 30 days prior to commencing the work for the following:
• Residential developments of ten or more acres of disturbed surface area. • Non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area. • The relocation of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of materials on at least three days.
Operations may not commence until the District has approved the Dust Control Plan. A copy of the plan must be on site and available to workers and District employees . All work on the site is subject to the requirements of the approved dust control plan. A failure to abide by the plan by anyone on site may be subject to enforcement action. Owners or operators of construction projects that are at least one acre in size and where a Dust Control Plan is not required, must provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours in advance of any earthmoving activity.
Record Keeping is required to document compliance with the rules and must be kept for each day any dust control measure is used. The District has developed record forms for water application, street sweeping, and “permanent” controls such as applying long term dust palliatives, vegetation, ground cover materials, paving, or other durable materials. Record s must be kept for one year after the end of dust generating activities (Title V sources must keep records for five years).
Nuisances are prohibited at all times because District Rule 4102 – Nuisance applies to all construction sources of fugitive dust, whether or not they are exempt from Regulation VIII. It is
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 75 important to monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate dust control measures to limit the public’s exposure to fugitive dust.
4.3.4 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the SJVAPCD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds (shown in Table 4-8) be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts.
Table 4-8 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold
Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions
(tons/year)
Operational Emission (tons/year)
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
ROGs 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
The project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the project show that SO2 emissions are well below the SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the mode ling results contained in Appendix A. No further analysis of SO2 is required.
a) Would the project 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)?
Less than Significant. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementati on of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI does not provide specific guidance on analyzing conformity with the Air Quality Plan (AQP). Therefore, this document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQP’s:
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 76
1. Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQPs? This measure is determined by comparison to the regional and localized thresholds identified by the District or Regional and Local Air Pollutants.
2. Will the project conform to the assumptions in the AQPs?
3. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The use of criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the SJVAPCD’s jurisdictions, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
• Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards. • Air Quality Plan (AQP) emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction. • AQPs rely on a set or air district-initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and state measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.
AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the SJVAB can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the gro wth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures. The applicable AQPs include the 2016 8 -Hour Ozone Plan which contains measures to achieve reductions in emissions of ozone precursors and sets plans towards attainment of ambient ozone standards by 2031 and the 2018, 2016, 2015, 2012, and 2008 PM2.5 Plans to address multiple PM2.5 air quality standards and attainment deadlines.
Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure of 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 or 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. B ecause of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if Project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 77 significance thresholds, then the Project would be c onsidered to conflict with the attainment plans.
As shown in Impact AIR -2, emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds. As shown in Impact AIR -3, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial pollutant concentration. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations.
Consistency with Assumptions in AQPs
The primary way of determining consistency with the AQP’s assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the SJVAB.
As required by California law, city, and county General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth and designates locations for land uses to regulate growth. The Fresno County Council of Governmen ts (Fresno County COG) uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans, among other sources to estimate future average daily trips and then vehicles miles traveled (VMT), which are then provided to the SJVAPCD to estimate future emissions in the AQPs. Existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQPs are based on land uses from area general plans. AQPs detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards based on these growth and emission estimates.
The applicable General Plan for the project is the City of Fresno General Plan, which was adopted in December 2014. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designated the site as Residential.
As part of the project, the Applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to designate the site as Light Industrial. Although the Proposed Project will not be consistent with the land use assumptions within the AQPs for the SJVAB, the change in land use will result in a lower population density than accounted for in the AQPs. Furthermore, since the Proposed Project will consolidate three existing facilities within the City to one warehouse, the Proposed Project will not increase employment to levels that will indirectly increase th e City’s population. Therefore, despite the General Plan Amendment, the Project would be consistent with the modeling used to prepare the AQPs. The impact would be less than significant.
Control Measures
The AQP contains several control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A detailed description of rules and regulations that apply to this
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 78 Project is provided in the Regulatory Setting. The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regula tions. Therefore, the project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Conclusion
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQPs. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. No mitigation is 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?
Less than Significant. To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
1. Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD in its GAMAQI.
2. Summary of projections: the project must be consistent with current air AQPs including control measures and regulations. This is an approach consistent with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. Cumulative health impacts: the project must result in less than significant cumulative health effects from the nonattainment pollutants. This approach correlates the significance of the regional analysis with health effects, consistent with the court decision, Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1219-20.
Step 1: Regional Analysis
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects 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 also assessed 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.
The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction and operation are ROG, NO x, PM10,
and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for ROG and NOx; SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 79 Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away 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 SJVAB 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 SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the Project define substantial contribution both operational and construction emissions are provided in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10.
Table 4-9 Construction Emissions – Unmitigated
Construction
Year
Emissions (Tons/Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2022 0.38 3.50 3.33 <0.01 0.69 0.40
2023 0.02 0.18 0.21 <0.01 0.02 0.01
Significance
Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Any Year
Exceed
Significance
Thresholds?
No No No No No No
Notes:
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A).
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT- GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed July 19, 2021.
Operations
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project and from two main sources: areas sources and motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operations emissions separately when making significance determination. The emissions output for project operation at full buildout for 2024 are summarized in Table 4-10. As shown in Table 4-10, the operational emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for all criteria air pollutants. The impact is less than significant.
Table 4-10 Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated Source
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.20 <0.01 0.01 0.00 >0.01 >0.01
Energy 0.05 0.48 0.41 >0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile 1.28 2.16 12.17 0.03 2.73 0.75
Total 3.54 2.65 12.59 0.03 2.77 0.78
Significance
Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 80 Source
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Exceed Significance
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
Emissions were quantified using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0 based on project details and estimated operating year for the proposed project. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A).
If an area is in nonattainment for a criteria pollutant, then the background concentration of that pollutant has historically exceeded the ambient air quality standard. It follows that if a project exceeds the regional threshold for that nonattainment poll utant, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of that pollutant and result in a significant cumulative impact.
The SJVAB is in nonattainment for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. Therefore, if the Project exceeds the regional thresholds for PM10, or PM2.5, then it contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact for those pollutants. If the Project exceeds the regional threshold for NO X or ROG, then it follows
that the Project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact for ozone.
The criteria pollutant emissions analysis, as shown in above, assessed whether the Project would exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10, criteria
pollutant emissions would not exceed any threshold of significance during Project construction or operation. Therefore, the combination of unmitigated Project emissions with the criteria pollutants from other sources within the SJVAB would not cumulatively contribute to a significant impact according to this criterion.
Step 2: Plan Approach
Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts:
1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted o r certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts is based on a summary of projections analysis. The SJVAB is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM
10 and PM 2.5), which means that concentrations of these pollutants currently exceed the applicable ambient air quality standards.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 81 Cumulative impacts may be analyzed using other plans that evaluate relevant cumulative effects.
The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the SJVAB, because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the SJVAB circulate and are often trapped. The SJVAPCD is required to prepare and maintain air quality attainment plans and a State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SJVAPCD does not have direct authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning would help the SJVAB achieve clean air mandates. The SJVAPCD evaluated emissions from land uses and transportation in the entire SJVAB when it developed its attainment plans.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the Project complies with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program.
As discussed in Impact AIR-1, the project is consistent with all applicable control measures in the air quality attainment plans. The Project would be required to comply with any SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may pertain to implementation of the AQPs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with regard to compliance with control measures and regulations.
Step 3: Cumulative Health Impacts
The SJVAB is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects.
Adverse health effects induced by ozone includes short- term effects such as coughing, difficulty breathing, and sore throat as well as long -term effects including inflamed or damaged airways, aggravated lung diseases like asthma or bronchitis, and increased frequency of asthma attacks. O3 is created through c hemical reactions between NOx, VOCs, and oxygen (EPA, 2021c). Therefore, the health effects related to O
3 are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout the region.
Exposure to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) can affect the lungs and heart and may cause irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, and decreased lung function (EPA, 2021b). Direct sources of particulate matter include construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, and fires. Particulate matter
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 82 is also formed indirectly as a result of complex reactions of chemicals such as SOx and NOx (EPA, 2021b).
The SJVAPCD has acknowledged that while HRAs for localized air toxic impacts are commonly prepared, the currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s criteria air pollutant emissions and specific human health impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015b). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOx and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOC would reduce O 3 levels at the highest monitored site
by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O 3-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations (SCAQMD, 2015).
The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions, as shown above indicates that the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, and the Project is consistent with the applicable AQPs. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would not have a measurable effect on human health and would not result in significant cumulative health impacts from nonattainment pollutants and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Project would not 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.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? This discussion addresses whether the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), construction -generated fugitive dust (PM 10), ROG, NO X, PM2.5, Valley Fever, construction generated DPM and operational health risks from the proposed
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 83 facility. A sensitive receptor is a person in a population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are typically located:
• Long-term health care facilities
• Rehabilitation centers
• Convalescent centers
• Hospitals
• Retirement homes
• Residences
• Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
The proposed Project is considered a sensitive receptor once operational, however there are not any nearby sources of TAC near the site and impact to these receptors was not evaluated. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the residents adjacent to the project site.
Localized Impacts
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. In locations that already exceed standards for these po llutants, significance is based on a significant impact level (SIL) that represents the amount that is considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard. The pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are NO 2 and CO.
The SJVAPCD has provided guidance for screening localized impacts in the GAMAQI that establishes a screening threshold of 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant. If a project exceeds 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then ambient air quality modeling would be necessary. If the Project does not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then it can be assumed that it would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard.
Construction: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 Local construction impacts would be short -term in nature lasting only during the duration of construction. Because of the short duration and limited amount of construction anticipated for the Project, application of best management practices through compliance with Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust Prohibitions to minimize construction emissions, and levels of emissions less than the SJVAPCD’s emission significance thresholds, localized construction concentrations are considered less than significant. It should also be noted that the on -site construction emissions would be less than 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 4-11
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 84 below. To present a conservative estimate, on -site emissions for on -road construction vehicles were included in the localized analysis. It should be noted that the estimates below do not include reductions associated with Rule 9510 compliance, which would reduce NO X and PM10 emissions.
Based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance the construction emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-11 Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Construction Emissions Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
2022
Site Preparation 33.08 19.70 20.68 11.52
Grading/Excavation 38.84 29.04 8.53 4.91
Drainage/Utilities/Trenching 38.84 29.04 8.53 4.91
Foundations/Concrete Pour 11.12 14.58 0.57 0.52
Building Construction 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Paving 3.55 2.21 0.82 0.26
Maximum Localized
Emissions (2022) 38.84 29.04 20.68 11.52
2023
Building Construction 4.11 5.28 1.88 0.53
Paving 2.89 1.96 0.80 0.24
Maximum Localized
Emissions (2023) 4.11 5.28 1.88 0.53
Maximum in Any Calendar
Year 38.84 29.04 20.68 11.52
Significance Thresholds 100 100 100 100
Any Year Exceed
Significance Thresholds? No No No No
Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the unmitigated output and as a result are more conservative as they do not reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The table only accounts for on-site construction emissions.
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Attachment A).
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI- 2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed April 16, 2021.
Operation: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 Localized impacts could occur in areas with a single large source of emission s such as a power plant or with multiple sources concentrated in a small area such as a distribution center. Since the proposed project is proposing the development of 477,470 square feet of industrial space for the purpose of drying and curing meat, localized levels of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 are not expected to exceed localized impacts.
Construction
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 85 ROG
During paving operations, ROG is emitted. The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paving materials. There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, SJVAPCD Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than one -half (0.5) percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500 degrees Fa hrenheit (°F) or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower.
An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.
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.
Sensitive receptors 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 sensitive receptors from ROG during construction is less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur (U.S. Geological Survey 2011), there are no such areas in the Project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
Fugitive Dust (PM10)
PM10 emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance, nevertheless, the potential for localized PM10 health impacts is a concern, however, the Project would comply with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII incorporating Best Management Practices for reducing fugitive dust, thus potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 86 contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off- road activities. The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever.
Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The Project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation would reduce Valley fever impacts too less than significant.
During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the Project from generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.
Health Risk Assessment
Construction activities have the potential to generate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions related to the number and types of equipment typically associated with construction. Off -road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site grading, paving, and other construction activities result in the generation of DPM. For construction activity, DPM is the primary air toxic of concern.
Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., DPM) were identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1998. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors there is the potential for the DPM emissions to result in a health impact.
Accordingly, an analysis was prepared to determine if a potential health risk would occur. During operation, the proposed Project will generate DPM emissions from heavy- duty diesel trucks visiting the site for shipping, receiving, garbage, and other miscellaneous trips.
Table 4-12 presents
the estimated weekly and annual truck trips generated by the proposed Project.
Table 4-12 Estimated Trucking Numbers
Day of the Week Truck Type Number
Monday
Shipping 5
Receiving 3
Freezer 3
Pallet* 2
Garbage* 1
Subtotal 14
Tuesday
Shipping 4
Receiving 3
Freezer 3
Subtotal 10
Wednesday Shipping 5
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 87 Receiving 3
Freezer 3
Subtotal 11
Thursday
Shipping 7
Receiving 3
Freezer 3
Subtotal 13
Friday
Shipping 4
Receiving 3
Freezer 3
Subtotal 10
Additional UPS/FedEx 5
Weekly Total 63
Annual Total 3,276
Source: Busseto Foods, 2021.
An HRA was prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD and OEHHA guidance for the proposed project and is included as Appendix A. To assess the project’s total health risk impacts, impacts from both construction and operations were considered in this HRA . The HRA evaluated DPM (represent as exhaust PM2.5) emissions generated during construction and operation of the proposed project and the related health risk impacts for sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the project boundary over a 70 -year period . A project would result in a significant impact if it would individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 20 in one million or an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index. It should be noted that the SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in one million (formerly 10 in one million).
The project site is located within 1,000 feet from existing sensitive receptors that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction and operational periods. The nearest sensitive receptors are residents occupying a single-family home approximately 150 feet east of the project site. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with the proposed project from equipment exhaust (including DPM), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to concentrations at the receptor locations of interest (i.e., receptors at nearby residences).
Figure 4-2 Project Site with a 1,000 Foot Buffer
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 88
The location of the maximally exposure individual receptor (MEIR) is located on West Ave., east of the project site. As discussed above, AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM
2.5 at sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, as recommended by the SJVAPCD. To model emissions, a release height of 3 meters was chosen to represent the release height of construction equipment. During construction e missions from off- road construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area source. For operation, emissions from the heavy- duty diesel trucks were calculated through CARB’s Emissions Factors 2021 (EMFAC2021) program. Emissions were calc ulated assuming the trucks would travel one mile, which would conservatively capture the emissions of any trucks near the project site and sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the site. During operation, emissions from the trucks were distributed throughout the modeled area source.
The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risks be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, it recommends evaluating the risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero (third trimester exposure), ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure a re an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposure, an ASF of 3 for child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilograms of body weight per day (L/kg -day). As
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 89 recommended, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposure, and 80th percentile breathing rates are used for child and adult exposure. These age - specific breathing rates are 361 L/kg- day for the third trimester receptor, 1,090 L/kg- day for the infant receptors, 572 L/kg- day for child receptors, and 233 L/kg- day for adult receptors (OEHHA 2015). According to OEHHA, the cancer risk for a residential receptor is assumed to start in the third trimester o f life. Consistent with SJVAPCD and OEHHA Guidance, Fraction of Time (FAH) values were also applied to the health risk calculations. Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, an FAH value of 0.851 was applied to third trimester and infant receptors. FAH values of 0.721 and 0.73 were applied to child and adult receptors, respectively) (SJVAPCD 2014).
Results of the health risk analysis for the emissions are summarized in Table 4-13. Construction of
the proposed Project will take place over one year. As a result, it was assumed that construction would occur during the third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.75 years of the infantile stage of life. The remainder of the 70-year cancer risk, including the remaining 1.25 years of the infantile stage of life, were assumed to occur during operation. The complete HRA prepared for the proposed project, including calculations and AERMOD output data used in the assessment are included in
Appendix A.
Table 4-13 Health Risks from the Proposed Project at the Maximally Exposed Sensitive Receptor Health Impact Metric Carcinogenic
Inhalation
Health Risk in
One Million
Chronic
Inhalation
Hazard Index Exposure Age
Phase of
Project
Exposure
Duration
Third Trimester Construction 0.25 1.62 0.028
Infant Construction 0.75 14.7 0.28
Infant Operation 1.25 0.02 .00002
Child Operation 14 0.02 0.0002
Adult Operation 54 0.16 0.0002
Total Cancer Risk 16.5 -
Threshold 20 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Notes:
Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM 2.5 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3.
Source: Appendix A.
Conclusion
Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 90 Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among th e public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor. The nearest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the proposed Project site would be the students and faculty at West Hills College, approximately 912 feet south of the Project site, the nearest residential receptor would be the single-family residence located 2,700 feet east of the Project site.
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project could result in short -term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. In addition, this diesel - powered equipment would only be present on site temporarily during construction activities.
Therefore, construction would not create objectionable odors affec ting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The proposed Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors and is not located within the screening distances to sources of odors recommended by the SJVAPCD. The proposed Project is associated with the drying and curing of meats on the site. However, these processes will occur inside the facility and are not expected to generate odor. Regardless, the proposed Project will be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4102 which prohibits nuisance discharge from a person or facility, including odor.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 91 Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
4.3.5 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the air quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 92
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish 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 state or federally protected
wetlands (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
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 93 f) Conflict with provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.
X
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and has been highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the Project site can be defined as ruderal and is composed of herbaceous vegetation. The site contains little vegetation and there are no trees or water features on site.
Habitat Assessment
Precision Civil Engineering conducted a Habitat Assessment/reconnaissance -level survey and preliminary wetland assessment for the Project site on December 17, 2020, in order to assess the biological resources located on and adjacent to the site in relation to existing laws, regulations, and policies. A Habitat Assessment Report is provided in Appendix B. The assessment utilized data
from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) special- status species database, FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS database, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) electronic inventory database. Major findings of the Habitat Assessment include:
Background Review
• Based on the CNDDB, there are 17 special-status species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the site’s vicinity. Of the 17 special -status species, there are 12 that may occur within a five (5) -mile radius of the Project site. Of the 12 special- status species, only four (4) species are listed with a known location and the remaining eight (8) are listed as located in Fresno.
• There have been previous sightings of the Hoary bat and the San Joaquin pocket mouse within a two (2)-mile radius and northwest of the site.
6 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals. The Pr oject site is located in the Fresno South Quad (USGS 75’ topographic quad, Quad Code: 3611947). The Fresno South Quad covers at least a 2.5- mile radius from the Project site.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 94 • Based on the CNPS, no special status plants were identified within the Fresno South quadrangles.
Site Investigation
• The site consists of a disked and graded field and contains very little vegetation; 90% of onsite vegetation consists of ruderal weedy species and tumbleweed. • Ground faunas were observed along the perimeter of the site. • Ground squirrel burrows were observed around onsite power -poles, on-site pump/well, and along the southern fence line. Sightings did not occur during the investigation. • Trees were not noted on the site or adjacent to the site. • Several American crows and brewer’s black birds were observed on site and American white pelicans, gulls, Great blue herons, American coots, and Egrets were observed in the water basin to the south of the site.
• No special-status species were observed on site.
• There are no ponds, standing water, or water features present.
The assessment concludes that the implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any special- status species or their habitat. Therefore, the Project has low potential to significantly impact the resources on site and no further studies are recommended.
4.4.2 Impact Assessment
a) Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modificati ons, 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the Habitat Assessment and survey conducted by Precision Civil Engineering on December 20, 2021 and December 17, 2021, there are 17 special -status species known to occur or have the potential to occur within the Fresno South Quad wherein the Project site is located. None of these species were observed during the survey conducted on December 17, 2020. In addition, the Habitat Assessment found the site to be highly disturbed due to grading and discing, having very little vegetation. According to the assessment, the existing vegetation can be primarily classified as agricultural habitat with ruderal weedy species less than six (6) inches tall; no trees or water features were present on the site. The assessment thereby assumes that the site could no t support wildlife species in nesting, foraging, or escaping from predators as a result of the site’s heavy alteration and lack of cover. Thus, based on the conclusions of the assessment, it can be determined that the Project site does not provide essentia l habitat for special-status species and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 95 Further, Mitigation Measures BIO-1.1a, BIO-1.1b, BIO-1.1c, and BIO -1.2 identified in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR remain applicable to the Project , which would mitigate for special-status species, natural communities, and habitats for special-status species:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1a: … conduct botanical surveys to confirm the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species to determine if the habitat supports any special-status species. …
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1b: avoid or consult before the direct or incidental take of any state- or federally listed species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1c: avoid special -status natural communities and vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species or take compensatory habitat-based mitigation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2: conduct a Swainson’s hawk survey and mitigate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat accordingly.
Note: Other mitigation measures are listed in SECTION 5.
The Project has completed mitigation measure BIO -1.1a through the Habitat Assessment conducted on December 20, 2021 . Based on the Habitat Assessment, the remaining mitigation measures are not applicable to the Project since the Project is not expected to significantly affect special-status species and riparian or wetland habitats in the area. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Habitat Assessment, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife database, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service database, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project. In addition, the site does not contain any water features that would provide habitat for such species. While a basin is located south of the site, the assessment indicated the basin site is heavily impacted with very little vegetation which would not provide essential habitat. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project site does not provide any riparian habitat and thus, no impact would occur because of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 96 c) Has a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Based on the preliminary wetland assessment conducted at the Project site, the site does not contain any of the primary wetland indicators (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and surface hydrology). The on -site topography consists of leveled agricultural land with an elevation of 300 ft. The assessment did not find any obligate wetland indicator species on the site, nor on the basin to the south. In addition, no ponds or standing water was found on the Project site and the basin was not found to contain any structures to divert water on the site. Further, the soils at the site were found to be of the Atwater type that is coarse-loamy and cultivated. The soil type is not listed as a hydric soil. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project site does not contain any of the primary wetland indicators and thus, no impact on state or federally protected wetlands would occur because of the Project.
d) Would the project interfere substantially w ith the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are linear habitats that function to connect two (2) or more areas of significant wildlife habitat. These corridors may function on a local level as links between small habitat patches (e.g., streams in urban settings) or may provide critical connections between regionally significant habitats (e.g., deer movement corridors).
Wildlife corridors typically include vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of wild animals from one area of suitable habitat to another, in order to fulfill foraging, breeding, and territorial needs. These corridors often provide cover and protection from predators that may be lacking in surrounding habitats. Wildlife corridors generally include riparian zones and similar linear expanses of contiguous habitat.
As previously mentioned, the Project site does not contain habitat that could support wildlife species in nesting, foraging, or escaping from predators. This is based on the existing conditions of the site including the site’s heavy alteration and lack of cover, vegetation, or water features. Due to these conditions, it can be determined that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. While the Fresno General Plan calls for the protection of biological resources, the Project site does not indicate the presence of any sensitive habitat or special-status species. In
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 97 addition, though the Fresno Municipal Code identifies tree protection policies, it would not apply to the Project since no trees exist on site. Due to the lack of any identified special -status species or habitat for special- status species, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, the Project would have no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project site is within the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and mainten ance activities and minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The Project would not conflict or interfere with HCP. The Project is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery goals for several species. The Project would not conflict with the plan since the site does not provide appropriate habitat for the species me ntioned and would comply to applicable General Plan policies regarding habitat conservation. The City, County, and Regional Planning Agency do not have any other adopted or approved plans for habitat or natural community conservation. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact.
4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the biological resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 98
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, historical resources include sites, structures, objects, or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission. According to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan DEIR, there are 48 historic -era structures or facilities documented in its study area.
In recent history, the Project site has been operated as agricultural land before 2017 and is currently vacant and undeveloped. There are no improvements or structures on-site. Topography is generally flat. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the Project site can be defined as ruderal and is composed of herbaceous vegetation. There are no shrubs or trees present on the site. West Church Avenue, a two (2) -lane, east-west collector forms the northerly site boundary and South West Avenue, a two (2)-lane, north-west collector forms the westerly site boundary.
Record Search
The Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) conducted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding area ( 0.5-mile radius) on October 5, 2020 (Record Search File Number 20 -352). The search results do not show any formally recorded prehistoric or historic archeological resources or historic buildings within
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 99 the Project area. There is one recorded resource within the 0.5 -mile radius, P -10-004337, a historic-era broadcasting station. There are no cultural resources within the Project area, or 0.5- mile radius listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks. In addition, no resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups have been formally reported to the SSJIC . The SSJIC Correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
4.5.2 Impact Assessment
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the records search conducted on October 5, 2020, and the site visit/survey on December 17, 2020, there are no known local, state, or federal designated historical resources on the Project site or within the Project area. However, while there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that hidden and buried resources may exist on the Project site with no surface evidence. Thus, in the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown resources before or during grading activities, the prop osed Project shall incorporate Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures related to cultural resources including CUL -1, CUL-4, and CUL-5 in order to reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and an archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. …
MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL -4: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. …
Mitigation Measure CUL -5: Implement Fresno General Plan ME IR Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-4.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. Based on the records search and site visit/survey conducted in 2020, 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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 100 possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. To mitigate the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown resources before or during grading activities, the P roject shall incorporate Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-4 which would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than significant impact.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site.
Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non -visible buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activiti es which would constitute a significant impact. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR imposes Mitigation Measure CUL-4 on all projects which may cause ground disturbance pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Therefore, if any human remains were discovered, implementation of CUL-4 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.
4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implemen t and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 101
4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Appendix F – Energy Conservation of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of energy implications in project decisions, including a discussion of the potential energy impacts with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Per Appendix F, a project would be considered inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy s upplies and requirements for additional capacity, had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms, and effected energy resources.
The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. They apply for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, re sidential and nonresidential buildings and relate to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting.
7 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Part 11, Title 24, California
7 California Energy Commission . (n/a) 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed on September 17, 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 102 Code of Regulations, was developed in 2007 to meet the state goals for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions pursuant to AB32. CALGreen covers five (5) categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.8 The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) oversees air pollution control efforts, regulations, and programs that contribute to reduction of energy consumption.
Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs ensure that development will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources.
4.6.2 Impact Assessment
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of a two -story warehouse building with associated installation of associate site improvements such as parking and utilities infrastructure.
Construction
Construction activities include typical site preparation, grading, paving, architectural coating, and trenching. Demolition would not be required because there are no existing structures. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction process es that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities. The primary source of energy for construction activities are diesel and gasoline, from the transportation of building materials and equip ment and construction worker trips. While such activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, such consumption would be temporary and conclude upon completion of construction. All construction equipment and activities shall conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies.
Operations
Operations include the processing, warehousing, and distribution activities located on the ground floor and administrative activities located on the second floor. Operations would involve heating, cooling, equipment, and vehicle trips. Energy consumption related to operations would be
8 California Department of General Services . (2020). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code . Accessed on September 17, 2021, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CGBC2019P3
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 103 associated with natural gas, electricity, and fuel. The Project would be served by PG&E and would not require extensions of energy infrastructure or new energy supplies.
Construction and operations of the Project would be subject to applicable Airborne Toxic Control Measure (CARB) regulations, California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requi rements (e.g., Lighting Power Density requirements). Energy outputs for short- term construction and long- term operations were estimated using CalEEMod ( Appendix A). Results of the estimation and analysis do not rise to a level of significance. Furthermore, construction of the project would be required to meet applicable state and local regulations and programs described previously to reduce energy waste.
Therefore, construction and operation would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. As previously mentioned, the construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable CARB regul ations, California Code of Regulations, and Title 24 standards that include a broad set of energy conservation requirements in addition to BMPs for water conservation. Applicable state and local regulations and programs would be implemented to reduce energy waste from operation. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for energy efficiency and would have no impact.
4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 104
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 105 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
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?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the San Joaquin Valley which is one of the two large valleys comprising the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded by Sierra Nevada (east), Coast Ranges (west), Tehachapi (south), and the Sacramento Valley (north). The Fresno area is set on gently southwest-sloping alluvial fans and plans formed by the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers.
A brief discussion of the likelihood of seismic activities to occur in or affect Fresno is provided below. However, CEQA requires an analysis of the Project’s impacts on the environment, not the environment’s potential impacts on the Project; therefore, shaking, liquefaction, and other seismic activities are less than significant.
Faulting. There are no active faults mapped within the city of Fresno and is not in any Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zones. The Project site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The nearest fault to Southwest Fresno inclusive of the project site is the Clovis Fault, 13.5 miles to the northeast, which is a non-active fault. The nearest active faults include Nunez Fault (approximately 50 miles southwest), San Andreas Fault (approximately 65 miles southwest), the Sierra Nevada Fault Zone (approximately 83 miles to the east), and the Owens Valley Fault Zone (approximately 91 miles east).
Subsurface Soils. According to the Geologic Hazards Investigation for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, the uppermost soils in the Fresno area (i.e., 6-12 inches) comprise very loose silty sand, silty sand with trace clay, sandy silt, clayey sand, or clayey gravel. These soils are disturbed, have low strength, and are highly compressible when saturated. Area soils between two (2) to four (4) feet below ground surface (bgs) range from loose/soft to very dense/hard clays, silts, sands, and gravels
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 106 with the characteristics of moderately strong and moderately compre ssible. Three (3) to five (5) feet bgs soils are clays, silts, sands, and gravels that are moderately strong and slightly compressible. A search of the Web Soil Survey by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the following soils comprise the Project site9:
AtA: Atwater sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes, well drained, and very low runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches. The AtA soils account for
95.6% of the project site.
Hc: Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, well drained, and very low runoff. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches. The Hc soils account for 4.4% of the project site, located in the northeast corner of the site.
Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine -grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high -intensity ground shaking. The potential for liquefaction in the city of Fresno is low to moderate, per the Fresno County Multi - Hazard Mitigation Plan. T here has been no observed liquefaction from any historic earthquake.
Additionally, ground shaking, seismic settlement, and lateral spreading are not considered to be significant hazards due to the stable area soils as observed in the Geologic Hazards Inves tigation for the 2025 Fresno General Plan.
Erosion. Wind and flowing water are the primary agents of erosion in the San Joaquin Valley. Two types of areas with moderate to high erosion potential are identified by the Fresno County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan: soils in the Sierra Nevada and foothills on slopes over 30 percent and soils in the western San Joaquin Valley and Coast Ranges. However, the Project site is not in these areas and is therefore not subject to the potential for moderate to high erosion.
Ground Subsidence. Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. According to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, the Fresno area it not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas with potential for subsidence hazards are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the project area, as mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
9 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed on September 17, 2021, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 107
Figure 4-3 Geologic Map of the Fresno region
Source: California Geological Survey, 1965.
Qf - Granitic sand and silt of Quaternary age, within the last approximately 2.59 million years
4.7.2 Impact Assessment
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 substanti al evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno, nor is Fresno within an Alquist- Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. In addition, the Project does not have any aspect that could result in a fault rupturing. As CEQA requires an analysis of a Project’s impact on the environment rather than the en vironment’s impacts on a Project, no impacts would occur. Thus, the Project would not cause rupture of a known earthquake fault and therefore, would have no impact.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno and Fresno has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking . In addition, the Fresno area is classified by the State as being in a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 108 the soils underlying the specific location being categorized and that location’s proximity to the nearest known fault lines. The Project site is relatively flat and has stable, native soils and is not in close proximity to any fault lines. In addition, the Project would be required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code (CBC), which are intended to minimize potential risks. Therefore, because of the Project’s stable soils and distance from active fault lines, and because of the Project’s conformance to CBC seismic safety standards, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, Fresno has a low to moderate potential for seismic activities. There are also no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the Project site. The site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent uniq ue or significant landforms. For this reason, liquefaction or seismically induced settlement or bearing loss is considered unlikely, even if there should be a substantial increase in ground water level. Further, development of the site would require compliance with the City’s grading and drainage standards.
Therefore, because of the Project’s relatively flat topography, stability of soils, infrequency of seismic activity, and required compliance with City standards, and because the Project does not have any aspect that could result in seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils, and the site is not susceptible to seismic activities, geologic instability, or landslides.
Furthermore, the site is not in the immediate vicinity of rivers or creeks that would be more susceptible to landslid es. In addition, the Project does not have any aspect that could result in landslide. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact as a result of the Project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. 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 which 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 Ge neral 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.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 109 BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. With these provisions in place, impacts to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The site is relatively flat with stable soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Furthermore, the Project site is in an area of infrequent and low historic seismic activity of nearby faults. Such factors minimize the potential for other geologic hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, any development on the native, stable soils is unlikely to become unstable and result in geologic hazards. In addition, the Project does not have any aspect that coul d result in a landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat and stable, native soils of the AtA, Atwater sandy loam, and Hc, Hanford sandy loam. Sandy loam soils are not classified as expansive soil, as de fined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Thus, no impact would occur because of the Project. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Project will not involve the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The Project site will be connected to the City’s water and sewer systems.
Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section above, there are no known paleontological resources or unique geological features known to the City within this area or on this site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. Southwest Specific Plan EIR imposes Mitigation Measure CUL-4 on all projects
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 110 which may cause ground disturbance pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Therefore, if any paleontological resources or geologic features were discovered, implementation of CUL-4 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.
4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 111
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect” and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high -frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.
Local
Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, methane (CH
4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). Primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, are discussed in the following subsections.
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 112 sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum -based products can also lead to CO 2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (EPA 2019b).
Methane
CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH 4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87% by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non -wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years (EPA 2019b).
Nitrous Oxide
N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by both natural and human- related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N
2O is approximately 120 years (EPA 2017b).
Hydrofluorocarbons
HFCs are man -made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC -23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from jus t over a year for HFC -152a to 260 years for HFC -23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (e.g., HFC -134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (EPA 2017b).
Perfluorocarbons
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 113 PFCs are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases:
perfluoromethane (CF 4), perfluoroethane (C 2F6), perfluoropropane (C 3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C 4F8), perfluor opentane (C 5F12), and perfluorohexane (C 6F14).
Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF 4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively (EPA 2017b).
Nitrogen Trifluoride
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, toxic, nonflammable gas used as an etchant in microelectronics. NF 3 is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the plasma- enhanced chemical vapor deposition chambers in the production of liquid crystal displays and silicon-based thin film solar cells. In 2009, NF 3 was listed by California as a poten tial GHG to be listed and regulated under AB 32 (Section 38505 Health and Safety Code).
Sulfur Hexafluoride
SF6 is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and generally nonflammable.
SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80% of all SF6 produced worldwide. Leaks of SF6 occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (EPA 2017b).
Black Carbon
Black carbon is the most strongly light -absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly by absorbing sunlight and indirectly by depositing on snow and by inte racting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is considered a short-lived species, which can vary spatially and, consequently, it is very difficult to quantify associated global- warming potentials. The main sources of black carbon in California are wildfires, off- road vehicles (locomotives, marine vessels, tractors, excavators, dozers, etc.), on -road vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), fireplaces, agricultural waste burning, and prescribed burning (planned burns of forest or wildlands).
California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, including programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2013).
Global Warming Potential
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 114 Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2e), which weight each gas by its global warming potential (GWP).
Expressing GHG e missions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO 2 were being emitted. Based on a 100 -year time horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO 2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF 3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon (Forester, 2007).
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
On a global scale, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with activities related to energy production; changes in land use, such as deforestation and land clearing; industrial sources; agricultural activities; transportation; waste and wastewater generation; and commercial and residential land uses. World -wide, energy production including the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global GHG emissions.
California’s most recent GHG emissions inventory is depicted in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-4 GHG Emissions by Economic Sector
Source: CARB 2018
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 115 In 2018, GHG emissions within California totaled 425.3 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e. Within California, the transportation sector is the largest contributor, accounting for approximately 41% of the total statewide GHG emissions. Emissions associated w ith industrial uses are the second largest contributor, totaling roughly 24%. Electricity generation totaled roughly 15% (CARB 2018).
Effects of Global Climate Change
There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, increased air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.
Within California, climate changes would likely alter the ecolog ical characteristics of many ecosystems throughout the state. Such alterations would likely include increases in surface temperatures and changes in the form, timing, and intensity of precipitation. For instance, historical records are depicting an increasing trend toward earlier snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada.
This snowpack is a principal supply of water for the state, providing roughly 50% of state’s annual runoff. If this trend continues, some areas of the state may experience an increased danger of floods during the winter months and possible exhaustion of the snowpack during spring and summer months. An earlier snowmelt would also impact the state’s energy resources. An early exhaustion of the Sierra snowpack may force electricity producers to switch to more costly or non- renewable forms of electricity generation during spring and summer months. A changing climate may also impact agricultural crop yields, coastal structures, and biodiversity. As a result, resultant changes in climate will likely have detr imental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Endangerment” and “Cause or Contribute” Findings On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. USEPA, 549 US 497, the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court held that the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 116 decision. In making these decisions, the USEPA is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the CAA.
On April 17, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed proposed “endangerment” and “cause or contribute” findings for GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA. The USEPA held a 60 -day public comment period, considered public comments, and issued final findings. The USEPA found that six GHGs taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The USEPA also found that the combined emis sions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse effect as air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA Section 202(a).
Clean Vehicles
In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the USEPA adopted GHG emission standards for light- duty vehicles in May 2010 and for heavy- duty vehicles in August of 2011. In 2012, the agencies jointly adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for light duty cars and trucks, which would cover model years 2017 through 2025. In August of 2016, the agencies adopted more stringent Phase 2 standards for medium - and heavy-duty vehicles, which would cover model years 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
On September 22, 2009, the EPA released its final Greenhouse Gas Repor ting Rule (Reporting Rule). The Reporting Rule is a response to the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), that required the EPA to develop “…mandatory reporting of GHGs above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy….” The Reporting Rule applies to most entities that emit 25,000 metric tons of CO 2e (MTCO 2e) or more per year. Since 2010, facility owners must submit an annual GHG emissions report with detailed calculations of facility GHG emissions. The Reporting Rule also mandates recordkeeping and administrative requirements in order for the EPA to verify annual GHG emissions reports.
New Source Review
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that establishes thresholds for GHGs, which will define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting prog rams to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 117 The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subje ct to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide for new, affected, fossil fuel ‐fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts would be required to meet an output- based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt‐hour, based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology.
President Obama and the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan in August of 2015. In 2030, the Clean Power Plan would cut carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels and increase renewable energy generation percent to nearly 20 percent of all power supplied. By comparison, in 2015, renewable energy accounted for about 13% of electricity generation.
However, on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review and on March 28, 2017, the Executive Order on Energy Independence (EO 13783) was signed and called for a review of the Clean Power Plan (USEPA 2018a). On October 16, 2017, the EPA issued the proposed rule Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units an Energy Independence (EPA 2017).
Cap‐and‐Trade
Cap-and-Trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. There is no federal GHG Cap-and-Trade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for Cap-and-Trade.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctions carbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008.
The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 118 California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Currently only California and Quebec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade program (C2ES 2015).
Paris Climate Agreement
The Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty on climate change adopted on December 12, 2015. The goal of the agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as compared to pre-industrial levels. Counties will aim to reach global peaking of GHG emission s as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century. To achieve these reductions, the Paris Climate Agreement works on a 5-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carries out by countries. Therefore, by 2020, countries were required to submit their plans for climate action, known as nationally determined contributions. Additionally, the Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical, and capacity building support to those counties who need it. Developed countries wil l take a lead in providing financial assistance to other countries since large scale investments are required for GHG mitigation and climate adaptation (United Nations [UN]).
The United States joined 190 other countries in the Paris Climate Agreement under the Obama administration in September 2016. Under the Trump administration, the President announced his intention to withdraw from the Agreement in June 2017 and formally notified the United Nations in November 2019. However, the Agreement requires a year -long waiting period before a formal withdrawal will be recognized. As a result, the United States officially withdrew from the Agreement in November 2020. However, on January 20, 2021, President Biden accepted and rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement.
State
Assembly Bill 32
The California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defin ed under AB 32 include CO 2, methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NO X), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs.
The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well -being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the qual ity and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 119 displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO
2e) on December 6, 2007 (CARB 2007). Therefore, to meet the s tate’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO 2e.
Emissions in 2020 in a business as usual ( BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO 2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (CARB 2008). At that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO 2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth. The 2020 inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO 2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (CARB 2010).
Progress in Achieving Assembly Bill 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required The state has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in EO S-3-05. The progress is evident in updated emission inventories prepared by CARB, which showed that the state inventory dropped below 1990 levels for the first time in 2016 (CARB 2018). CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) (subsequently amended by the 2017 update) includes projections indicating that the s tate would meet or exceed the 2020 target with adopted regulations (CARB 2017).
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan contains measures designed to reduce the state’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32 (CARB 2008). The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target —each sector has a different emission reduction target.
Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include the following:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards.
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent. • Developing a California Cap -and-Trade Program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system. • Establishing targets for transportation related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 120 • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long - term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. Capped strategies are subject to the proposed Cap ‐and‐Trade Program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the Cap ‐and‐Trade Program would help ensure that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve a sufficient number of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB
32. Uncapped strategies that will not be subject to the c ap‐and‐trade emissions caps , and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.
Cap-and-Trade Program
The Cap -and-Trade Program is a key element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long- term investment in cleaner fuels and more effi cient use of energy. The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plants and large industrial sources in January 2013.
Other significant milestones include linkage to Quebec’s Cap -and-Trade system in January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015.
The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limit would not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap -and-Trade Program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are guaranteed only on an accumulative basis.
The Cap -and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If Californ ia’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap -and-Trade Program would be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program would be responsible for relatively
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 121 more emissions reductions. Thus, the Cap-and-Trade Program assures that California would meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate.
CARB approved the First Update to the Scoping Plan (Update) on May 22, 2014. The Update identified the next steps for California’s climate change strategy. The Update shows how California continues on its path to meet the near -term 2020 GHG limit, but also sets a path toward long - term, deep GHG emission reductio ns. The report established a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 398
The Governor signed AB 398 on July 25, 2017, to extend the Cap-and-Trade Program to 2030.The legislation includes provisions to ensure that offsets used by sources are limited to 4 percent of their compliance obligation from 2021 to 2025 and 6 percent of their compliance obligation from 2026 through 2030. AB 398 also prevents air districts from ad opting or implementing emission reduction rules from stationary sources that are also subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program (CARB 2017).
Senate Bill 32
Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law on September 8, 2016. SB 32 gives CARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in EO B -30-15 in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. SB 32 states that “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.”
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update was adopted on December 14, 2017, amending the 2008 Scoping Plan and addresses the SB 32 targets. The major elements of the frame work proposed to achieve the 2030 target are as follows:
1. SB 350
a. Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030. b. Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
2. Low Carbon Fuel Standard
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 122 a. Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).
3. Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) a. Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. b. Put 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles on the roads. c. Increase zero-emission vehicles buses and delivery and other trucks.
4. Sustainable Freight Action Plan
a. Improve freight system efficiency.
b. Maximize use of near-zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy.
c. Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
5. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
a. Reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.
b. Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.
6. SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
a. Increased stringency of 2035 targets.
7. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
a. Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. b. CARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality co-benefits, including specific program design elements. In Fall 2016, CARB staff described potential future amendments including reducing the offset usage limit, redesigning the allocation strategy to reduce free allocation to support increased technology and energy investment at covered entities and reducing allocation if the covered entity increases criteria or toxics emissions over some baseline.
8. 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector.
9. Develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 123 Many of the measures included in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update are implemented on a statewide level and do not specifically apply to the Project. However, the short-lived climate pollutants would be applicable to the Program through the use of cleaner construction equipment.
Senate Bill 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits more than 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
CARB has prepared the Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets.
Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations and fuel efficiency standards that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.
Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by USEPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. USEPA subsequently granted the re quested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.
The standards were phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near -term (2009 –2012) standards resulted in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid -term (2013–2016) standards resulted in about a 30 percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation, rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi -speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant.
The second phase of the implementation for AB 1493 was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program, referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog -causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.
The regulation would re duce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 124 rules would reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars and would deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging p lug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations would also ensure that adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.
Senate Bill 1368: Emission Performance Standards
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant.
Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal -fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants.
Accordingly, the new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the state.
The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long -term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
Senate Bill 1078: Renewable Electricity Standards
On September 12, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S -14-08, which established an RPS target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Governor Schwarzenegger signe d EO S-21- 09, which directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the state’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolutio n 10-23. In 2011, the State Legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1 -2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas.
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 125 The legislature approved and the governor then signed SB 350 on October 7, 2015, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requir ements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations.
Senate Bill 100: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.
The Governor approved SB 100 on September 10, 2018. The legislation revised the RPS goals to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill would require that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end -use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 pe rcent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.
Senate Bill X7‐7: The Water Conservation Act of 2009
SB X7-7 directs urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and to begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand will result in a reduction of almost 2 million acre‐feet of urban water use in 2020.
Executive Order S‐3‐05
On June 1, 2005, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced EO S‐3‐05, which announced the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that would stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid ‐term target. Because this is an EO, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued EO B-30-15 to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 126 Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in late 2015. The EO sets a new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure that California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO2e. The EO also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every 3 years and for the state to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with EO S -3-05, this EO is not legally enforceable against local governments and the pr ivate sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to provide post- 2020 targets was signed by the Governor in 2016. SB 32 includes a 2030 mandate matching the requirements of the EO.
Executive Order S-01-07: Low Carbon Fuel Standard
The governor signed EO S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the EO established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS ) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life -cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to CARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009.
The LCFS was subject to legal challenge in 2011. Ultimately, CARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement.
The Office of Administrative Law approved the regulation on November 16, 2015. The regulation was last amended in 2018.
Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the EO, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted, which is the “… first statewide, multi -sector, region -specific, and information-based climate change adaptation str ategy in the United States.” Objectives include
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 127 analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18 issued by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, establishes a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The EO directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal.
California Energy Code
Compliance with the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], California’s Energy Efficiency Standards) and Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy, standards must occur for all new buildings constructed in California. These efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential (i.e., maintenance buildings and pump station buildings associated with the Program) buildings, and they regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit processes, a nd local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings provided that these standards meet or exceed those provided in the Title 24 guidelines.
Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
On December 17, 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Governing Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land ‐use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” SJVAPCD concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climat e change. SJVAPCD found the effects of project‐ specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climate change could be considered cumulatively considerable. SJVAPCD found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.
City of Fresno
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 128 The City of Fresno adopted its first GHG Plan in December 2014. The GHG Plan established a target of reducing per capita GHG emissions in the city by 21.7 percent below 2020 business -as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020 and includes GHG reduction measures designed to achieve the reduction target. The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2 Since adoption of the GHG Plan, two significant regulations/decisions have been established. First, on September 28, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 into law that sets a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, on November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court published its decision on the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan invalidating the EIR for a variety of reasons, including the use of 29 percent below BAU as a threshold to determine si gnificance of GHG emissions under CEQA without any supporting evidence.
The GHG Plan Update adopted with the General Plan Update in August 2020 ensures conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re -evaluated the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures were included to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 was evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU an d adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario considers the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in AB 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG re duction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and w ould allow the City to develop long -term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
4.8.3 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
See Section 4.3.3.
4.8.4 Impact Assessment
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on GHGs, the type, level, and impact o f emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.
The following GHG significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 129 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
This section discusses potential impacts concerning greenhouse gases associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.
Thresholds
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse GHG impact if the project would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Add ressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA presents a tiered approach to analyzing project significance with respect to GHG emissions. Project GHG emissions are considered less than significant if they can meet any of the following conditions, evaluated in the order presented:
• Project is exempt from CEQA requirements.
• Project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program.
• Project implements Best Performance Standards (BPS); or • Project demonstrates that specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period.
On November 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court (Court) issued its decision on the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Newhall Ranch project case. The Court determined that there is not substantial evidence to link a specific project’s achievement of CARB’s Scoping P lan’s statewide average reduction below BAU to the conclusion that the project’s reduction would meet AB 32’s 2020 goals. Furthermore, since the release of SJVAPCD’s guidance, SB32 has been issued that requires the state to further reduce GHG emissions beyond the goals laid out in AB32. As a result, the 29 percent reduction in emissions as compared to a BAU standard are outdated and were not used for this analysis.
CEQA Guidelines15064.4 provides guidance for determining the significance of impacts from GHGs as follows:
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 130 (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions.
The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.
A lead agency should consider the following factors, among o thers, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
(2) Whether the pro ject emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduct ion or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In deter mining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long- term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 131 contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its se lection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.
Project Threshold
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
On December 17, 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Governing Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” SJVAPCD concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climate change. SJVAPCD found the effects of project -specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climate change could be considered cumulatively considerable. SJVAPCD found that this cumulative impact is be st addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.
City of Fresno
The City of Fresno adopted its first Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) in December 2014.
The GHG Plan established a target of reducing per capita GHG emissions in the city by 21.7 percent below 2020 business -as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020 and includes GHG reduction measures designed to achieve the reduction target as well as strategies that will continue to provid e GHG reductions for 2035 and 2050 (City of Fresno, 2014). The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2 Since adoption of the GHG Plan, two significant regulations/decisions have been established. First, on Septemb er 28, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 into law that sets a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, on November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court published its decision on the Newhall Ranch Spe cific Plan invalidating the EIR for a variety of reasons, including the use of 29 percent below BAU as a threshold to determine significance of GHG emissions under CEQA without any supporting evidence.
The GHG Plan Update adopted with the General Plan Upd ate in August 2020 ensures conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re -evaluated the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction str ategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures were included to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 132 City’s GHG in ventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 was evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario considers the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in AB 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and would allow th e City to develop long -term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The following emissions estimate is consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.4. CalEEMod was used to estimate the Project’s GHG emissions. Modeling assumptions are described in 4.3.3 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions.
Constructions Emission Inventory
Construction GHGs would be emitted by the off- road construction equipment and vehicle travel by workers and material deliveries to the project site. The estimated construction GHG emissions are shown in
Table 4-14. Because construction GHG emissions are temporary and reduction measures are limited, a common professional practice is to amortize the construction emissions over the life of the project. A c ommercial project is conservatively assumed to have a life of 30 years.
Table 4-14 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Year MTCO2e
2022 732
2023 48
Total 780
Amortized over 30 years1 26
Notes:
1. GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed project.
Source: Stantec 2021, CalEEMod 2020.4.0.
Operational Emission Inventory
Operational or long -term emissions occur over the life of the project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as landscaping activities and residential woodburning. Operational GHG emissions associated with the project were estimated using CalEEMod 2020.4.0.
Operational GHG emissions are shown in Table 4-15.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 133 Table 4-15 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Area 0.01
Energy 917
Mobile 2,690
Waste 298
Water 206
Amortized Construction Emissions 26
Total 4,137
Source: Stantec 2021, CalEEMod 2020.4.0 (Appendix A).
The proposed project’s GHG impact is determined by its consistency with applicable statewide and regional GHG reduction plans. As shown in Impact GHG -2, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, City of Fresno CAP, Fresno County COG’s RTP/SCS, and the City’s General Plan goals that aim to reduce air quality and energy (which in turn reduce GHG emissions), as such the Project will comply with applicable reduction plans and GHG emissions are less than significant.
The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; the impact is less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions and global climate change if it would substantially conflict with the provisions of Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant GHG impact is identified if the project could conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations. Development projects would be subject to complying with SB 32, Fresno COG’s RTP/SCS, and the City’s applicable goals.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 134 SB 32 is a statewide reduction goal aimed at reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan sets a framework for the State to meet the reduction targets of SB 32.
Consistency with the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update
CARB issued the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update in November 2017 and establishes emissions reduction strategies necessary to meet SB 32’s 2030 reduction goals. Table 4-16 identifies the Scoping Plan policies that are applicable to the proposed project. As shown, the proposed project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan.
Table 4-16 Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Measure Name Measure Description Consistency Determination SB 350 50%
Renewable
Mandate.
Utilities subject to the legislation will be
required to increase their renewable energy
mix from 33% in 2020 to 50% in 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project will
purchase electricity from a utility subject to
the SB 350 Renewable Mandate. In
addition, the proposed project would be
required to adhere to the latest Title 24 and
CALGreen building standards for non-
residential buildings.
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
This measure requires fuel providers to
meet an 18 percent reduction in carbon
content by 2030.
Consistent. Vehicles accessing the
proposed project site will use fuel
containing lower carbon content as the fuel
standard is implemented.
Mobile Source
Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and
Fuels Scenario)
Vehicle manufacturers will be required to
meet existing regulations mandated by the
LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs.
The strategy includes a goal of having 4.2
million ZEVs on the road by 2030 and
increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and
buses.
Consistent. Future employees can be
expected to purchase increasing numbers
of more fuel efficient and zero emission
cars and trucks each year. The 2019
CALGreen Code non-residential
development to include future charging
vehicle spaces. The site is expected to
receive deliveries and ship their product
with an increasing numbers of ZEV delivery
trucks as they become more commercially
available and as CARB’s Advanced Clean
Truck Regulation takes effect.
Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant (SLCP)
Reduction Strategy
The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by
2030 and the reduction of black carbon by
50 percent from 2013 levels by 2030.
Consistent. Black carbon is created from
the burning of fuels such as coal, diesel,
and biomass. The proposed Project may
indirectly emit black carbon from diesel
heavy duty truck trips to and from the site.
However, the site is expected to receive
deliveries and ship their product with an
increasing numbers of ZEV delivery trucks
as they become more commercially
available and as CARB’s Advanced Clean
Truck Regulation takes effect. As a result,
the proposed Project will reduce its SLCP
and black carbon pollution by 2030.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 135 Measure Name Measure Description Consistency Determination SB 375 Sustainable
Communities
Strategies
Requires Regional Transportation Plans to
include a sustainable communities’ strategy
for reduction of per capita vehicle miles
traveled.
Consistent. The Project Applicant
currently operates three facilities across
the City. The facility at 1351 N. Crystal lies
over three miles from the 1090 W. Church
and 2413 S. Fruit Avenue facilities.
Consolidating the manufacturing in a single
facility will reduce the vehicle miles
traveled throughout Fresno from
employees, deliveries, and shipping trips.
Post-2020 Cap-and-
Trade Program
The Post 2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
continues the existing program for another
10 years. The Cap-and-Trade Program
applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.
Consistent. The post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people who use
the products and services produced by the
regulated industrial sources when
increased cost of products or services
(such as electricity and fuel) are transferred
to the consumers. The Cap-and-Trade
Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consumed in
California, whether generated in-state or
imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions
associated with CEQA projects’ electricity
usage are covered by the Cap- and-Trade
Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program
also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and
propane fuel providers and transportation
fuel providers) to address emissions from
such fuels and from combustion of other
fossil fuels not directly covered at large
sources in the program’s first compliance
period.
Source of Measures: CARB, 2017
Source of Consistency Determination: Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2021 Based on this evaluation, this analysis finds the project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable strategies recommended in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.
Consistency with the City of Fresno GHG Plan Update
The City of Fresno adopted the GHG Plan Update in 2020. The GHG Plan Update includes a project consistency checklist that provides a platform and framework to track the GHG reduction strategies for individual projects. The Checklist serves to further the City of Fresno’s sustainability goals and policies by encouraging more sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources. Individual projects that meet the Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with the Fresno GHG Plan Update and will be determined to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. As shown in
Table 4-17, the proposed project would
be consistent with the GHG Plan Update.
Table 4-17 Consistency with the City of Fresno GHG Plan Update Check List Item Project Consistency
Strategy 1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Management
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 136 Does the project provide complete streets for all
roadway improvements? (Complete streets are
roadways that include curb, gutter, and sidewalks on
both sides of the street. For local and collector streets, adequate roadways width is provided to accommodate
two-way vehicle traffic and bicycles and arterial streets include striping for bike lanes.)
Not Applicable. The Project will develop a warehouse
on a greenfield site and will not develop or upgrade any public roadways. The Project will not interfere with any roadway improvements.
Is the project a large employer (over 100 employees)
and if so, will the project comply with SJVAPCD Rule
9410 and provide an Employer Trips Reduction
Implementation Plan that will include trip reduction
methods such as increasing transit use, carpooling,
vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures?
Not Applicable. The Project is not required to provide
an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan per
SJVAPCD Rule 9410. Pursuant to Rule 9410,
employees who do not report to work between 6 am
and 10 am and seasonal employees employed less
than 16 consecutive weeks are excluded from the 100
Eligible Employee threshold.
10 Strategy 2: Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Does the project meet the mandatory energy efficiency
measures of the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen)? If the Project exceeds mandatory
CALGreen measures, then provide the tier number that
the project will meet in explanation.
Consistent. The Project is required under CALGreen to
meet the mandatory energy efficiency measures for
non-residential projects.
For commercial projects, does it achieve net zero
electricity? Mark NA if project will be permitted before 2030.
Not Applicable. The Project is not required to achieve
net zero electricity as it will be permitted and
operational prior to 2030.
Does the project include onsite energy generation using renewable energy? If no, mark NA.
Not Applicable. The Project is not required to include
onsite energy generation using renewable energy.
Strategy 3: Water Conservation
Does the project meet the mandatory indoor water use
measures of the CALGreen Code? If the project
exceeds CALGreen mandatory measures provides
methods in excess of requirements in the explanation.
Consistent. The Project is required under CALGreen to
meet the mandatory indoor water use measures for
non-residential projects.
Does the project meet the mandatory outdoor water use
measures in the CALGreen Code? If the project
exceeds CALGreen mandatory measures provides
methods in excess of requirements in the explanation.
Consistent. The Project is required under CALGreen to
meet the mandatory outdoor water use measures for
non-residential projects.
Strategy 4: Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
When completed will the project implement techniques
for solid waste diversion and reduction (i.e., recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, waste
separation)?
Consistent. The Project will be serviced by a waste
collection service that will be required under state law to meet waste diversion goals. The facility will implement standard recycling practices and will have separate
recycling collection bins.
During construction will the project recycle construction and demolition waste?
Consistent. The Project will not require any demolition or grading that will require the hauling of construction
waste. However, construction will comply with all
applicable county and city codes related to construction and solid waste managements.
10 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The eTRIP Rule - Rule 9410: Employer Based Trip Reduction .
Accessed on December 28, 2021,
http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/Rule9410TripReduction/eTRIP_main.htm#who_is_subject
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 137 Consistency with SJVAPCD CCAP
The SJVAPCD has adopted a CCAP, which includes suggested BPS for proposed residential development projects. Appendix J of the SJVAPCD Final Staff Report for the CCAP contains GHG reduction measures. Most measures in the Report are applicable to mixed -use and residential developments, however some of these measures can also be applied to commercial developments. The proposed project’s consistency with these measures is included in Table 4-18
below. As shown in the table, the project would be consistent with applicable CCAP measures.
Table 4-18 Project Consistency with Applicable SJVAPCD CCAP GHG Reduction Measures Measure
Name Measure Description Project Consistency
Additional GHG Emission Reduction Measures Requiring Additional Investigation 11- Vehicle
Idling
Limit idling for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
Consistent. CARB limits idling of diesel
vehicles to 5 minutes. The Project will
comply as applicable. As part of
operations, tractor trailers on site during
loading and unloading will not be permitted
to idle their engines. All trucks will be
equipped with electrical refrigeration units
that will “plug in” at the loading bays.
16-Energy
Efficient
Appliances
Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems,
appliances and equipment, and control systems.
Consistent. The Project will be designed
to be compliant with the 2019 California
Building Standards and the California
Energy Commission's regulations on
nonresidential buildings.
20 - Tree
Plants
Protect existing trees and encourage the planting of
new trees. Adopt a tree protection and replacement
ordinance, e.g., requiring that trees larger than a
specified diameter that are removed to accommodate
development must be replaced at a set ratio.
Consistent. Development of the Project
will not result in the destruction or removal
of any trees on the site. The Project will
plant 81 new trees along the north and
west side of the site, according to the
landscape plan submitted for the Project.
Source: Stantec 2021. SJVAPCD, 2009.
Consistency with Fresno COG RTP/SCS
The Fresno COG’s 2018 RTP/SCS includes a series of goals for the region that would reduce GHG emissions based on the land use consistency and the reduction of vehicle trips. The proposed project’s consistency with these measures is included in Table 4-19 below. As shown in the table, the project would be consistent with applicable Fresno COG measures.
Table 4-19 Project Consistency with Applicable Fresno COG Goals Goals Consistency
An efficient, safe, integrated, multimodal
transportation system.
Consistent. The Proposed Project will consolidate three warehouses across the City into one warehouse. This will create a more efficient system for the Applicant as well as the City’s transportation network as city-wide vehicle and truck travel associated with Busseto Foods will be reduced. The
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 138 Goals Consistency
Project also provides sidewalk and shade trees, increasing the walkability of the neighborhood.
Coordinate planning that is consistent with efforts
that affect the region.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
A multimodal regional transportation network
compatible with adopted land use plans and
consistent with the intent of SB 375.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Support cooperative efforts between local, state,
federal agencies, and the public to plan, develop
and manage our transportation system.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Attainment and maintenance of the California and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (criteria
pollutants) as set by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the California Air Resources Board.
Consistent. The proposed Project’s construction and
operational air pollutant emissions will fall below SJVAPCD thresholds and as a result will be consistent with the Air Basin’s attainment plans and will not result in a significant impact for a pollutant in which the area is in nonattainment for.
Achieve a safe transportation system for all
motorized and non-motorized users on all public
roads in Fresno County.
Consistent. The Proposed Project will consolidate three warehouses across the City into one warehouse. This will create a more efficient system for the Applicant as well as the City’s transportation network as city-wide vehicle and truck travel associated with Busseto Foods will be reduced. A reduction in total vehicle trips will lead to a safer network with less risk of collision or accidents.
An integrated and efficient highways, streets and
roads network.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Utilize a partnership of federal, State, regional,
local, community, and industry stakeholders to
move freight on a safe, integrated, modern,
efficient, and resilient system that contributes to
the Fresno Region’s economy, jobs, and healthy,
livable communities.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Efficient use of available transportation funding. Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Maintain highways, roads, and bridges in a state of
good repair for all users.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
An efficient and fiscally responsible public
transportation mobility system.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 139 Goals Consistency
A quality, convenient, safe and reliable public
transportation service.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
An efficient and effective public transportation
system.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Public transit services with a positive public image
in communities served.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
An integrated multimodal transportation system
which facilitates the movement of people.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
A coordinated policy for public transportation that
complements land use and air quality/climate
change policies.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Achieve or maintain transit network in a state of
good repair.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
A fully functional and integrated air service and
airport system that is complementary to the
regional transportation system.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Maximize bicycling and walking through their
recognition and integration as valid and healthy
transportation modes in transportation planning
activities
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Safe, convenient, and continuous routes for
bicyclists and pedestrians of all types which
interface with and complement a multimodal
transportation system
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety through
education, engineering and enforcement.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Increased development of the regional bikeways
system, related facilities, and pedestrian facilities
by maximizing funding opportunities.
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
A safe, efficient and convenient rail system which
serves the passenger and freight needs of the
region and which is integrated with and
complementary to the total transportation system
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
A transportation system that efficiently and
effectively transports goods throughout Fresno
County
Not Applicable. This goal is aimed at local and regional jurisdictions. The Project will not interfere with this goal.
Source: Stantec 2021. Fresno COG 2018.
Conclusion
The Project proposes to consolidate the three existing facilities in the City of Fresno into one manufacturing warehouse. Under current operations, Busseto utilizes a leased freezer to store raw materials, a production plant where the product is stuffed, dried, sliced, and packaged, and a third facility where finished product is stored and shipped out to customers. The new warehouse facility will hold the freezer operations as well as the storage, shipping, and receiving operations that are currently done at 1351 N. Crystal (located over three miles north of the Fruit and Church facilities). This will reduce shuttle truck activities and vehicle miles traveled between the three facilities.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 140 As analyzed above, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, or any other State or regional plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition, the Project will be required to adhere to Title 24 and California Build ing Standards. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan; therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
4.8.5 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the greenhouse gas emissions related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 141
4.9 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
X
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 142 g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to "injurious substances," which include flammable liquids and gases, poisons, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, radioactive materials, and medical supplies and waste. These materials are either generated or used by various commercial and industrial activities. Hazardous wastes are injurious substances that have been or will be disp osed. Potential hazards arise from the transport of hazardous materials, including leakage and accidents involving transporting vehicles. There also are hazards associated with the use and storage of these materials and wastes. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories based on their properties:
• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that: “…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an incr ease in mortality or an increase in serious illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20 -24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
Hazardous waste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households . Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. The release of hazardous
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 143 materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations and is similar to the transport, use, and disposal of hazard materials.
Record Search
The California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on September 20, 2021. The search revealed no hazardous material release sites on the Project site. The closest hazardous site is a three (3) -acre cleanup program site, an abandoned salvage yard, which is approximately 2 ,080 feet northeast from the Project site. Further, no hazardous release or contamination has been observed or tracked on Busseto’s existing facilities.
Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Facilities that use and/or store hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes are required to meet the requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 20, Chapter
6.95, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. In Fresno County, businesses that handle hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste are requ ired to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, pursuant to HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.95. Fresno County Department of Public Health reviewed the proposed Project and has conditioned the Project to submit an HMBP in order to provide for safe storage and use of chemicals.
4.9.2 Impact Assessment
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would consist of food processing, warehousing, distribution, and administrative activities to produce food products for sale and consumption. The products produced at the Facility will include four (4) types of dried meat – salami, pancetta, coppa, and prosciutto. The food processing involves a non -odor emitting process consisting of fermentation and drying in atmosphere -controlled rooms. It is anticipated that the Facility will produce 500,000 to 600,000 pounds of dried meat per week. Because of the use and product, it is not expected that the Project would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials.
However, the Project is subject to review by Fresno County Department of Public Health and has been conditioned to submit an HMBP . Therefore, if the Facility does handle hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste, compliance with the HMBP as approved by the County will reduce any impacts to less than significant. Potential impacts during construction of the Projec t could result
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 144 from the use of fuels and lubricants for construction equipment. However, these impacts would be short- term and temporary, and would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations in addition to standard equipment operating practices. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion a) above, it is not anticipated that the Project itself will involve any operations that would require routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and therefore is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials. In the case that the Project does involve hazardous materials, the HMBP as approved by the County would ensure safe storage and use of such materials. While potential impacts could occur through construction -related transport and disposal of hazardous materials, such impacts would be short-term and temporary, and would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations in addition to standard equipment operating practices. Therefore, the Project would not be expected to cause the release of hazardous materials into the environment and thus, a les s than significant impact would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. There are no proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the subject site. The nearest existing schools are Sunset Elementary (approximately ± 0.70 miles) and Edison High School (approximately ± 0.75 miles), both of which are further than one -quarter mile of the Project site. Based on the layout of the Project site, trucks would utilize South West Avenue for arrival and departure from the site. And because of the regional nature of the Project’s operations, it can be assumed that trips generated from the Project would utilize Jensen Avenue to reach state facilities (i.e., SR -41, SR -99, and SR -180). Neither school are located on this tentative route.
Further, as described under criteria a) and b) above, the proposed Project is not anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would pose a risk or threat to the school or surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 145 d) Be located on a site which i s included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. According to EnviroStor and GeoTracker, the Project i s not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the environment. For these reasons, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public and public use airport is the Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport approximately ± one (1) -mile north of the subject site. The Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport is owned and operated by the City of Fresno and has one (1) runway that is 3,626 feet long and 75 feet wide. The Federal Aviation Administration designates the airport as a general aviation reliever airport for Fresno Yosemite International Airport and it is used primarily for general aviation, including general aviation businesses offering services such as fueling, aircraft maintenance, restoration, flight instruction, charter services, and rentals. 11 According to the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC Plan)12 , the Project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Because it is within the AIA, the Project shall be reviewed by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in order to determine land use compatibility and receive a finding of consistency. The Project was reviewed by the ALUC on Monday, October 4, 2021. The ALUC approved a conditional finding of consistency contingent upon approval of airspace analysis under Part 77 from the FAA.
The ALUC Plan has set “safety zone land use compatibility standards” that restrict the development of land uses that could pose hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident . According to these standards (Table 4-20), the proposed P roject would be required to provide an airport disclosure notice. Because the proposed P roject is not
11 Federal Aviation Administration. (September 2014). Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed on September 20, 2021, https://www.fresnocog.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/ALUC_Chandler_Executive_Airport_Compatibility_Land_Use_Plan_Updat e_10-06-14.pdf 12 Fresno Council of Governments. (December 2018). Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed on September 20, 2021, https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04- 17c.pdf
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 146 greater than 100 feet, the airspace review and analysis regarding the 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces and the 50-foot penetration buffer do not apply.
Table 4-20 Safety Zone Land Use Compatibility Standards Zone TPZ
Dwelling Units per Acre No limit
Maximum Non-
Residential Intensity
• 300 persons per acre
• No limit in areas designated as Urban on Exhibit
C1, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport
Required Open Land 10%
Prohibited Uses
• Hazards to flight (i.e., physical (tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the
safety of aircraft operations. Land use
development, such as golf courses and certain
types of crops that may cause the attraction of
birds to increase is also prohibited).
• Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high
intensity standards
Other Development
Conditions
• Airport disclosure notice required
• Airspace review required for objects > 100 feet tall
• New structures are prohibited on existing terrain
that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces
• New structures require additional airspace
analysis required within the 50 -foot terrain
penetration buffer
Overall, the Project is required to be reviewed by the Fresno County ALUC and provide an airport disclosure notice in compliance with the safety zone land use compatibility standards for the TPZ.
Additionally, the Project would implement the Fresno General Plan objective NS-5 policies NS-5-a to NS-5-e. Therefore, through compliance with the ALUCP and General Plan, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area and impacts would be less than significant.
NS-5 Protect the safety, health, and welfare of persons and property on the ground and in aircraft by minimizing exposure to airport-related hazards.
NS-5-a Land Use and Height. Incorporate and enforce all applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP s) through land use designations, zoning, and development
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 147 standards to support the continued viability and flight operations of Fresno’s airports and to protect public safety, health, and general welfare.
• Limit land uses in airport safety zones to those uses listed in the applicable ALUCPs as compatible uses, and regulate compatibility in terms of location, height, and noise.
• Ensure that development, including public infrastructure projects, within the airport approach and departure zones complies with Par t 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), particularly in terms of height.
NS-5-b Airport Safety Hazards. Ensure that new development, including public infrastructure projects, does not create safety hazards such as glare from direct or reflective sources, smoke, electrical interference, hazardous chemicals, fuel storage, or from wildlife, in violation of adopted safety standards.
NS-5-c Avigation Easements. Employ avigation easements in order to secure and protect airspace required for unimpeded operation of publicly owned airports.
NS-5-d Disclosure. As a condition of approval for residential development projects, require sellers to prepare and provide State Department of Real Estate Disclosure statements to property buyers notifying of noise and safety issues related to airport operations.
NS-5-e Planned Expansion. Allow for the orderly expansion and improvement of publicly owned airports, while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with t hese facilities.
• Periodically update airport facility master plans in accordance with FAA regulations.
• Require land use within the boundaries of the Fresno -Yosemite International Airport and Chandler Downtown Airport to conform to designations and policies specified in adopted City of Fresno compatible land use plans. • Provide local jurisdictions surrounding the City's publicly owned airports with specific guidelines for effectively dealing with the presence and operation of these airports.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve any new or altered infrastructure associated with evacuation, emergency response, and emergency access routes within the City or
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 148 County of Fresno . Construction of frontage improvements may require lane closure; however, these activities would be short -term and access through West Church Avenue and South West Avenue would be maintained through standard traffic control. Following construction, these streets would continue to provide access to the site. Furthermore, the Project wo uld be subject to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a s ignificant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Fresno General Plan, wildfire threats to Fresno are minimal because the city is largely urbanized or working agricultural land and lacks stee p topographies. Although the city is proximate to high and very high fire hazard designated area, the urbanized area is categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard which is attributed to its paved areas. Furthermore, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within the Local Responsibility Area.13 In addition, the Project proposes a construction of a single structure that would be occupied by humans; as such, the structure shall be constructed in adherence to the Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Standards of the California Building Code Chapter 7A. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the Project meets stand ards to help prevent loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hazardous and hazardous materials related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed on September 21, 2021, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 149
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 150 iv. Impede or redirect flood
flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within city limits and thus, will be required to connect to water and stormwater services. The City and responsible agencies have reviewed the Project to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable connection and discharge requirements. Requirements for the Project are as follows:
• Install water service and meter boxes and pay Water Capacity Fee for installation. • Construct private facilities to discharge storm water runoff, including temporary facilities for South West Avenue until permanent drainage service is available.
Overall, the review of the Project by the City and responsible agencies indicates that the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, would not cause significant environmental effects. Through co mpliance with the applicable connection requirements, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
Water
The City of Fresno Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system. Fresno meets its demand for domestic water from a combination of groundwater, treated surface water, and reclaimed water sources. Groundwater is accessed from the Kings River Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in addition to the Northeas t Surface Water Treatment Facility and Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility. Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s recharge program at the City-owned Leaky Acres, Nielsen Recharge Facility, and smaller facilities in southeast Fresno.
Stormwater
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) manages stormwater runoff in Fresno.
The major elements of the FMFCD’s flood control system include dams, reservoirs, and detention basins. The FMFCD is responsible for review ing development proposals to assess drainage and
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 151 flood control impacts and needs, in addition to determining applicable requirements and modifications needed in order to implement the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
4.10.2 Impact Assessment
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Because the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the developer is required to prepare a SWPPP (Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantia l soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for the Project to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further, runoff resulting from the Project would be m anaged by the FMFCD in compliance with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan in addition to approved grading and drainage plans. Thus, compliance with existing regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, and Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 14 According to the UWMP, water demand in the city has decreased over the past several decades and is expected to grow at a slower rate than the anticipated population growth. This trend is captured by the daily per capita water use, measured as gallons per capita per day (GPCD). For 2020, water use averaged 198 GPCD based on 121,993 metered consumptions (AF) of water production. Of note, this GPCD
14 City of Fresno (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed October 6, 2021, https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/06/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Public- Draft_2021-06-29.pdf
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 152 is below the 2020 daily per capita water use target of 247 GPCD, which the UWMP attributes to conservation efforts implemented by the City.
According to the UWMP, the City’s per capita water usage is projected to continue to decline through 2045 due to more water efficiency in future construction and passive conservation pursuant to requirements of the California Plumbing Code (e.g., use of higher efficiency appliances, water efficient landscaping, etc.). Projected water use for single-family residential and industrial sectors is included in
Table 4-21. Single-family residential water use is the largest use type, accounting for almost 50 percent of potable water use whereas industrial water use is the smallest use type, accounting for less than five (5) percent of potable water use.
Table 4-21 Projected Water Use by Sector, 2020 – 2040
Water Use by Volume (AF)
Use Type 2020 2030 2040
Single-Family 81,200 87,000 92,100
Industrial 6,600 6,400 6,900
Source: City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2020 As mentioned above, the City of Fresno Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system. Fresno meets its demand for domestic water from a combination of groundwater, treated surface water, and reclaimed water sources. Groundwater is accessed from the Kings River Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in addition to the three surface water treatment facilities, which provide half of all potable water demands in the City’s service area.
Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s recharge program at the City- owned Leaky Acres, Nielsen Recharge Facility, and smaller facilities in southeast Fresno.
Regarding water supply reliability, the City manages its surface water and groundwater supply by maximizing water for potable use and intentional recharge during wet and normal years and relies on groundwater during dry years. To optimize water supply reliability and resiliency, the City is currently undergoing an update of its Metro Plan which will identify projects and programs.
Generally, the City’s approach is to maximize local supplies and improve the storage of the groundwater basin through recharge, recycled water usage, and conservation.
The UWMP projects normal water year, single dry water year, and five -year consecutive drought period supplies based on historic water allocations, sustainable yields, and utilization of recycled water. Based on these projections, the UWMP found that groundwater supplies remain reliable in all hydrologic conditions, att ributing the stability to intentional recharge. The projections also show that the City will have greater than 100,000 AF available supply in normal years after meeting demands. In a single dry year, surface water supplies will be reduced but the City woul d still be able to meet all potable demands. Lastly, for five -year consecutive drought periods, the City is
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 153 projected to meet all demands with its existing supplies with reduced groundwater recharge in year three (3) and four (4) to accommodate reduced sur face water allocations. Based on these projections, it can be inferred that future development, such as the proposed Project, will not negatively impact the City’s ability to provide water assuming adherence to requirements and recommendations from the City’s water resources planning efforts.
According to the UWMP, the Project site is located in the Southwest Pressure Zone and there is an active City well located near the northeast corner of West Church Avenue and South West Avenue across from the Project site. There are also existing 12-inch public water mains and public fire hydrants in both West Church Avenue and South West Avenue to which the Project can connect. As previously discussed, the Project has been reviewed by the City and is required to install water service and meter boxes to connect to the existing City facilities and pay the Water Capacity Fee for installation. Collectively, these facilities will convey water to and from the Project.
Potable water demands for the Project were estimated usin g land-use-based unit water demand factors last updated for the City in 2018. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Residential – Medium Density and proposes a change to Employment – Light Industrial. According to the land-use-based unit water demand factors for the City of Fresno, the medium low density land use has an annual average (ac-ft/yr/acre) of 3.14, compared to 1.84 for the light industrial land use.
Table 4-22 summarizes the total water demands to be expected by land use, indicating that a single-family residential (medium low density) land use would generate approximately 41% greater demand for water than the ligh t industrial land use. Given the significant reduction in water demand from what is planned, it can be determined that the City’s water supply will be adequate to support anticipated demands from the Project.
Table 4-22 Summary of Total Water Demands by Land Use
Land Use Area (ac) Annual Average (Ac-Ft/Yr/Acre) Annual Average (AFY) Existing
Medium Low Density 18.9 3.14 59.346
Proposed
Light Industrial 18.9 1.84 34.776
Source: City of Fresno, 2018 Water Demand Factors by Land Use Classification Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP and the City of Fresno, the proposed Project would generate significantly less water demand than would otherwise occur with the existing land use. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system and supplies should be adequate to serve the Project, and the Project would thereby not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 154 California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project Area can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the t urbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the development of agricultural lands .
Bare soils, common within farmlands, are more susceptible to erosion than an already developed urban land, thus it is expected erosion would occur on -site. During construction activities, and in compliance with the Project’s Stormwater Pollution Preventi on Plan (SWPPP), construction - related erosion controls and BMPs would be implemented to reduce potential impacts related to erosion and siltation. These BMPs would include, but are not limited to, covering and/or binding soil surfaces to prevent soil from being detached and transported by water or wind, and the use of barriers such as straw bales and sandbags to control sediment. Together, the controls and BMPs are intended to limit soil transportation and erosion.
In addition, the Project would increase i mpervious surfaces by installing paving, concrete pads, and sidewalks. In order to adequately discharge and capture stormwater runoff, the Project has been conditioned by the FMFCD to construct private facilities including temporary facilities for South We st Avenue until permanent drainage service is available. In addition, the proposed drainage pattern is required to be constructed per regulations of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and will be reviewed by the FMFCD to ensure proper drainage. Consequently, this review and approval by the FMFCD and compliance with standard requirements would mean that the Project would result in a less than significant impact. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. The FMFCD has reviewed the Project and has required construction of private facilities including temporary drainage facilities for South West Avenue until permanent drainage service is available. Such facilities are required to comply with the Storm Drainage and
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 155 Flood Control M aster Plan and Project -specific grading and drainage plans are subject to review by the FMFCD prior to the final development approval. Therefore, provision of private facilities and temporary facilities as approved by the FMFCD would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in flooding on- or off-site. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned, the FMFCD has reviewed the Project and has required construction of private facilities including temporary dr ainage facilities for South West Avenue until permanent drainage service is available. Such facilities are required to comply with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and Project-specific grading and drainage plans are subject to review by the FMFCD prior to the final development approval. Therefore, provision of private facilities and temporary facilities as approved by the FMFCD would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in the creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage services or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the construction of the proposed Project wou ld increase impervious surface s, the Project would not alter drainage patterns because Project- specific grading and drainage plans are required to be rev iewed by the FMFCD before development approval. Further, the Project is subject to construction of master plan facilities in addition to temporary facilities in order to adequately serve the Project. As a result, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and a less than significant impact would occur as a result. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone (i.e., standing waves on river, reservoirs, ponds, and lakes); there are no oceans, rivers, reservoirs, ponds, or lakes on or within the site and its vicinity. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (F IRM) No. 06019C2105H dated February 18, 2009. Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazards with a 0.2 percent -annual-chance of flood (i.e., 500 -year flood). In addition, the Project area as well as the City of Fresno as a whole has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking and has a relatively low probability of shaking. As such, seiches are unlikely to form due to the low seismic energy produced in the area. Therefore, as a
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 156 low-risk area, a less than significant impact as it relates to the risk release of pollutants due to project inundations would occur as a result of the Project. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. A groundwater sustainability plan was adopted for the Kings Groundwater Sub-basin on November 21, 2019, by the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, of which the City of Fresno is a member. 15 The proposed Project is required to comply with the adopted plan (North Kings Groundwater) to meet the 2040 sustainability deadline for the basin. As mentioned above, surface water will largely be the source of supply in wet hydrologic periods, groundwater will be used in a managed manner in normal hydrologic periods and relied upon more in very dry periods. Through 30 years of diligent water resource planning and construction of surface water treatment facilities, inclusive of the Southeast Surface water Treatment Facility (which is a project within the susta inability plan), the City has largely attained the balanced use of groundwater supplies well ahead of the legislative requirement of 2040, thus making the City compliant with the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan goals. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.
15 North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2020). Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Accessed October 6, 2021, https://northkingsgsa.org/groundwater-sustainability-plan/
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 157
4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within the city limits of Fresno and has a planned land use designation of Residential – Medium Density and is in the RS-5 – Residential Single-Family, Medium Density Zone District. Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P20-04209 requests to change the existing land use designation to Employment – Light Industrial and the existing zoning designation to IL – Light Industrial.
The Project site is located in an area generally characterized by a mix of existing land uses including industrial (north), open space – ponding basin (south), open space - agriculture (east), and junk yard (west). Aside from the surrounding parcels with existing operations, the Projec t area is characterized by several large parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. In addition, there are limited street frontage improvements present (i.e., curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm -drains, or streetlights) along West Church Avenue or South West Avenu e, with the exception of some improvements located on West Church Avenue and South West Avenue north of the Project site.
Implementation of the Project would introduce a new industrial use that is generally consistent with the existing land uses in the Pr oject area. In addition, the Project would improve vehicular roadways and pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes through street frontage improvements.
4.11.2 Impact Assessment
a) Physically divide an established community.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 158 Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a project created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community, or new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses. A typical example is the introduction of new, intersecting roadways.
The Project site is an undeveloped, vacant property within an area that is characterized by several large parcels that are also undeveloped and vacant. In the immediate vicinity of the Project, existing land uses include indu strial (north), open space (south and ea st), and junk yards (west).
Further, the operator of the proposed Facility, Busseto Food, has an existing facility located north of the site across West Church Avenue. The surrounding properties are planned for a mix of uses including employment (north and west), open space (south), and residential (east). The Project would include a plan amendment and rezone to allow for light industrial uses. Such uses would be consistent and therefore compatible with the existing uses surrounding the Project site.
The existing roadway infrastructure that serves the Project site and surrounding properties includes West Church Avenue and South West Avenue. Implementation of the Project would improve these roadways and introduce additional pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes through required street frontage improvements. Thus, new, intersecting roadways that physically divide an established community would not result from the Project.
As such, the Project does not represent a sign ificant change in the surrounding area as it will develop a vacant and undeveloped site with light industrial uses that are consistent and compatible with existing uses surrounding the Project site. In addition, the Project does not include new roadways. F or these reasons, the Project would not result in the physical divide of an established community and would thereby have a less than significant impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. Although zoning and land use designation changes are proposed, policy conflicts are environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources; however, a discussion of certain land use plans, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the proposed Project are included below.
Table 4-23 provides a comparison of the Project’s characteristics with all applicable policies included in the General Plan as they relate to land use issues. As discussed below, the proposed Project is generally consistent with the General Plan.
Table 4-23 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 159 General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU -7-b Business and Industrial Parks.
Promote business and industrial park sites that are
of sufficient size, unified in design, and diversified
in activity to attract a full range of business types
needed for economic growth.
The Project site is located across from one of the
current operating facilities located at 1090 West
Church Avenue. Currently, Busseto Foods operates at
1090 West Church, has a Distribution Center and
offices at 1351 North Crystal Avenue, and leases
freezers at 2413 South Fruit Avenue. The proposed
Project seeks to develop a new Facility of s ufficient
size and design that will encompass all existing
activities of Busseto Foods. Thus, the Project is
consistent with Policy LU -7-b in that it promotes
development of an industrial site that is sufficient in size, unified in design, and diversified in activity to meet current and future business needs for growth.
Policy LU-7-c Efficiency of Industrial Uses. Promote
industrial land use clusters to maximize the
operational efficiency of similar activities.
As previously mentioned, the proposed Projec t
would develop a Facility that encompasses all
existing activities of Busseto Foods under one (1)
roof. In addition, the proposed use is generally
consistent with industrial uses to the north of the
site. Thus, the Project is consistent with Policy LU -7- c in that it would maximize the operational efficiency
of an existing industrial land use cluster.
Policy LU -7-e Shared Parking for Industrial Uses.
Promote use of shared surface parking and other
arrangements necessary to meet industrial needs
with updated parking regulations.
Through the entitlement and development approval
process, the Project has been reviewed and
conditioned by the City to comply with all applicable
regulations and standards including those within the
Development Code. As currently co
nfigured, the
Project does not have an opportunity for shared
surface parking but has been conditioned to meet
parking regulations applicable to industrial uses.
The project is also located within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan area (SWSP). Although there are policies related to industrial uses that the project may not be strictly in complianc e with, the non-compliance with not result in a significant environmental impact due to the conflict with the land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted . The major concerns related to industrial uses in the SWSP are related to air quality and traffic. As demonstrated in this document, the environmental impacts from this project on air quality are below all thresholds, and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for this project are below the VMT that would be associated with a residential development on the site.
Further, through the entitlement process, the Project is reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Overall, the entitlement process would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and any other applicable policies. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 160
4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 161
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
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
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or infer red significant mineral resources.
According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the nearest mineral resource areas to the city of Fresno are in the San Joaquin and Kings River areas which are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3. The Project site is more than nine (9) miles south of the San Joaquin River and more than 17 miles west of the Kings River.
4.12.2 Impact Assessment
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. Therefore, the Project would not re sult 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, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 162 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important minera l resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Proj ect would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Further, the site is not delineated on the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 163
4.13 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the p
roject area to
excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
In general, there are two (2) types of noise sources: 1) mobile source and 2) stationary sounds.
Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft. Stationary sounds are sources that do not move s uch as machinery or construction sites. Two (2) noise generating activities of the Project would include construction (short -term, temporary) and operational (long-term) noise.
The Fresno General Plan Noise Element and Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) outlines policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. In particular, General Plan Policy NS -1-a establishes a maximum average noise level of 70 dBA L
dn or CNEL at industrial uses and Policy NS-1-j establishes the significance
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 164 threshold for a significant increase generated by a project as an increase of 3 dB L dn or CNEL or more above the established, acceptable ambient noise levels.
Section 10-102 of the FMC also sets an ambient base n oise level of 70 dBA for industrial uses.
Section 10-106 prohibits any noise that exceeds the ambient noise level at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB, while Section 10-107 prohibits any noise which “disturbs or unduly annoys” people withi n schools, hospitals, or churches. Regarding construction -related noise impacts, Section 10-109 of the FMC permits construction work to take place between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on any day except Sunday, for work that is accomplished pursuant to a building permit.
Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior an d interior noise levels. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is a single-family residence located approximately 500 ft. west of the Project site.
Noise Monitoring
Ambient noise monitoring was conducted in the Project area by PlaceWorks in May 2017 for technical analyses to be included in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR. 16 PlaceWorks
conducted long-term (24-hour) and short-term (15-minute) measurements. Of the measurements conducted, Short-Term (ST) Measurement Location – 4 (ST-4) was the closest measurement to the Project site. ST -4 was located approximately 300 -feet northeast of the existing Busseto Foods Facility and approximately 390 -feet north of the proposed Facility. According to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR:
“Short-term noise monitoring Location 4 was located on the property of Foster Poultry Farms, along Teilman Ave nue approximately 375 feet north of Church Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 4:10 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 79°F with 26 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 3- 5 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by industrial noise (i.e., workpiece noise, machinery ‘hum’, truck movements), parking lot noise, and by roadway noise along Church Avenue.” (Page 4.11-18)
16 City of Fresno (2017). Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Accessed October 6, 2021, https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2016/10/SouthwestFresnoSpecificPlanPublicReviewDEIR.pdf
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 165 The results of the short-term noise measurement at ST-4 were: 54 Lmin, 60 Leq, and 76 Lmax.
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
PlaceWorks estimated traffic noise levels using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model for technical analyses to be included in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR in 2017. Specifically, the model was used to estimate the noise level increases on roadways over existing conditions at 50 feet from the centerline of roadways studied. In regard to the proposed Project, the most applicable roadway segment studied was West Church Avenue, from South West Avenue to South Walnut Avenue. This particular segment was found to have an existing dBA CNEL of 60.9, with an estimated increase of 7.4 based on the buildout of the Southwest Fresno Plan Area. This increase was found to result in a potentially significant impact for which the EIR considered a number of mitigation measures. However, the EIR concluded there were no feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce noise impacts to a less than sig nificant level and as such, the traffic noise impact is significant and unavoidable.
4.13.2 Impact Assessment
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? Less than Significant Impact. Noise generating activities of the Project would include traffic noise and stationery-source noise, such as operations and construction as described below. Overall, the Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to noise.
Traffic Noise
Development of the Project would increase traffic along West Church Avenue and South West Avenue. As defined by the General Plan, a substantial increase would be a noise increase greater than 3 dBA over existing conditions. Traffic noise levels for the roads surrounding the Project site were estimated for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, inclusive of West Church Avenue, from South West Avenue to South Walnut Avenue.
17 The model indicated an increase that was found to result in a potentially significant impact for which the EIR considered mitigation measures. Although the ITE trip generation for
17 City of Fresno (2017). Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Accessed October 6, 2021, https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2016/10/SouthwestFresnoSpecificPlanPublicReviewDEIR.pdf
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 166 “General Light Industrial” uses is higher than the previously analyzed Sing le-Family land use, the proposed project only anticipates between 10 and 13 truck trips per day and approximately 160 employees are projected to work at the Facility.
Truck trips associated with the Facility will consist of shipping, receiving, and freez er activities during weekdays, Monday through Friday, from either 8:00 am to 12:30 pm or 1:00 to 5:00 pm. In total, the Project anticipates between 10 and 13 truck trips per day. In addition to these anticipated trips, the Facility is expected to send and receive UPS and FedEx shipments and deliveries during weekdays, Monday through Friday. Pallet truck deliveries are expected one (1) to two (2) times a month and solid waste collection is expected to occur weekly as required by the City of Fresno.
Based on this, the worst-case scenario is that this facility would generate less than 400 trips per day ((160+ 13+20) * 2). This is much lower tha n the 1,520 average daily trips that would be associated with the development of 160 single family homes.
Overall, the EIR concluded there were no feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce traffic noise impacts to a less than significant level, and as a result, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Stationary-Source Noise
Operations: Stationary-source noise would result from Project operations, including the production of dried cured meats and shipping and receiving activities. The production of dried cured meats involves a lengthy process of fermentation and air -drying. The raw, uncur ed meat products are shipped to the Facility on a weekly basis where they are stored until production begins. Production consists of slicing, grinding, and/or stuffing the meats and then air drying.
Equipment used includes large grinders, stuffers, slicers , and drying racks. The Facility will utilize slicing lines and auto -filling equipment for the meats. The drying room will have regulated temperatures and humidity appropriate for air drying. The Facility will operate five (5) days per week, Monday through Friday, from 5:00 am to 10:30 pm. Shifts will comprise one (1) production shift (5:00 am to 2:00 pm) and two (2) slicing and packaging shifts (5:00 am to 1:30 pm and 2:30 pm to 10:30 pm). Based on the extent of the anticipated Facility operations, additional stationary noise sources can be expected from the mechanical equipment, refrigeration and HVAC systems.
Such noise sources can be expected to be intermittent and generally localized within the Facility.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 167 Based on a study prepared by the International J ournal of Public Health 18, the noise associated with slicing and packaging of cured meats within this type of facility is in the range of 85-90 dBA.
As mentioned above, Section 10 -102 of the FMC sets an ambient base noise level of 70 dBA for industrial uses. The building is proposed to be constructed as a concrete tilt- up building. A 150 mm precast concrete panel would provide at least 50 dB reduction of sound levels19, thus reducing interior noise levels to well below the 70dBA threshold.
Additional noise can be attributed to the loading docks. However, as discussed above and the project description, daily truck traffic to the site will be minimal, and based on state law, truck idling for more than 5 minutes is prohibited. In addition, the business, as part of their normal operation, has committed to t ractor trailers on site during loading and unloading not be ing permitted to idle their engines. All trucks will be equipped with electrical refrigeration units that will “plug in” at the loading bays. This combined with the block wall along the property line, will reduce impacts to less than significant. The Project would also be subject to compliance with the General Plan Noise Element and FMC requirements to ensure that the ambient noise level does not increase at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB.
As mentioned above, the Project proposes a non -residential use abutting a residential zone district, the Project will be required to comply with FMC Section 15-2008(B), “Common Property Lines. A six-foot-high screen wall shall be provided on the interior lot lines where any non-residential use abuts a residential district and where multi -family development of four or more units abuts a single-family residential district. Walls shall step down to three feet in height along interior property lines within front yards.” In addition, the Project is subject to compliance with the Uniform Building Code, which contains sound transmission control requirements including noise insulation standards. Therefore, compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that stationary-source noise does not increase to a level of significance and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur.
Construction: Stationary-source noise would result from construction activities through the use of construction equipment for grading the site and building the proposed structures. The Project is anticipated to begin construction in February 2022 with full buildout by J anuary 2023.
Construction phases would include standard construction activities such as site preparation, grading/excavation, draining/utilities/trenching, foundations/concrete pour, building
18 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7504514/ 19 https://www.nationalprecast.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Acoustic-properties-of-precast-concrete.pdf
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 168 construction, and paving. These activities would be temporary an d would generally take place Monday through Friday between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, as permitted by FMC Section 10 -109.
Overall, Project construction is not expected to result in a significant impact because the noise would be generated during daylight hours a nd not during evening or more noise -sensitive time periods; and the increase in noise would cease upon completion of the Project. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Ground borne vibration may result from operations and/or construction, depending on the use of equipment (e.g., pile drivers, bulldozers, jackhammers, etc.). distance to affected str uctures, and soil type. Depending on the method, equipment- generated vibrations could spread through the ground and effect nearby buildings. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of improvements and operations associated with the development, which include meat slicing and griding, as described above . Further, construction or operation of the Project would not involve equipment that would generate substantial groun dborne vibration of ground borne noise levels. As discussed under criteria a), project- generated stationary noise sources including construction and operational activities would not exceed standards of the General Plan or the FMC. Further, there are no sen sitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) that are adjacent to the Project site or within 50-100-ft. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single- family residence located approximately 500 -ft. west of the Project site. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
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 be residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public airport/public use airport is the Fresno -Chandler Executive Airport approximately ± one (1)-mile north of the Project site. The Project site is located within the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport, Airport Influence Area (AIA) but is outside of the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Because the Project is within the AIA, it is subject to the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility (ALUC) Pl an and is required to be reviewed by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Project was reviewed by the ALUC on Monday, October 4, 2021. The ALUC approved a conditional finding of consistency contingent upon approval of airspace analysis under Part 77 from the FAA. In addition, as discussed above, the Project would be required to comply with regulations set by the General Plan and FMC regarding noise. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not expose people
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 169 residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels and as a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the noise related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 170
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide the example of a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities th at could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units.
4.14.2 Impact Assessment
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as it will develop a vacant and undeveloped property with a use that is compatible with the existing land uses within the area. While the Project would generate
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 171 employment, it would not be at a level that could induce population growth. In addition, employees who currently work at the existing Busseto Facility across West Church Avenue would be transferred to the Project site. For these reasons, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly and would therefore have a less than significant impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped, wi th no improvements, people, or housing on site. Thus, development of the Project site would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing. However, because the Project proposes a change in land use and zoning that would reduce residential de nsity, the Project is subject to Senate Bill (SB) 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) and the City is required to upzone an equivalent amount of residential density elsewhere within the city of Fresno (i.e., achieve a “no net loss”). This requirement is subject to review and approval by the City prior to development approval. Thus, through compliance with SB 330, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 172
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 i mpacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within Fresno city limits and thus, would be subject to fees for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for such services. These services and fees include:
Fire Protection Services
Fire Protection Services in the city are provided by the Fresno Fire Department (FFD). The FFD operates a total of 24 fire stations/companies that serve a 336 -square-mile area. To facilitate adequate service ratios, response times , or other performance objectives for fire protection services, all development in the city of Fresno is required to be located within three (3) miles of an existing fire station. There are three (3) fire stations within a three (3)- mile radius of the proposed Project, including Station 3, Station 7, and Station 19. To address impacts to fire protection services, the City of Fresno has implemented the Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to Section
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 173 12-4.901 of the FMC, which requires developers to pay the “fair sha re” of construction and acquisition costs for improvements to fire department facilities. A Fire Facilities Impact Fee has been assessed for the proposed Project based on the Facility size.
Police Protection Services
Police Protection Services in the city are provided by the Fresno Police Department (FPD). The FPD is divided into five (5) policing districts. The Project falls within the Southwest Policing District and the nearest police station to the proposed Project is located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the site at 1211 Fresno Street., Fresno, CA 93706. According to the FPD Annual Report for 2020, Southwest officers received over 71,000 calls for service in 2020. The City uses a minimum level of service of two (2) officers per 1,000 residents. To address impacts to police protection services, the City of Fresno has implemented the Police Facilities Fee pursuant to Section 12 -4.801 of the FMC, which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. A Police Facilities Fee has been assessed for the proposed Project based on the Facility size.
Schools
Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Fresno Unified School District.
Schools within a one (1) -mile radius of the Project site include Sunset Elementary, Edison Computech, and Edison High School. Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” A School Impact Fee has been assessed for the proposed Project based on the Developer Fee rates in place at the time payment is due.
Parks and Recreation
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Fresno Parks and Recreation Department, Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS). The City’s service standard for parks is at least three (3) acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Fee which requires developers to p ay the “fair share” of construction and acquisition for improvements to park facilities. However, this fee is only applicable to residential development and therefore would not be required for the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 174
4.15.2 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project result in s ubstantial 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the city limits and therefore would be served by the FFD. There are three (3) fire stations within a three (3)-mile radius of the proposed Project, including Station 3, Station 7, and Station 19 . The Project’s proximity to existing stations would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. In addition, the FFD reviewed the Project for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the building(s) on site. According to FFD’s review, there are existing 12-inch public water mains and public fire hydrants in both South West Avenue and West Church Avenue. In addition to these existing facilities, FFD requires the Project to have private fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, FFD connections, and a fire pump room to adequately serve the Project. Further, the Project is subject to the Fire Facilities Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to fire department facilities . For t hese reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur. ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the city limits and therefore would be served by the FPD. The Project site is within the Southwest Policing District and the nearest police station to the proposed Project is located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the site. The Southwest Policing District reviewed the Project and did not provide any comments. Because the Project would not result in a net increase in the area population, it can be presumed that the Project would have little to no impact on the FPD’ s service ratio minimum for police officers to residents. Further, the Project is subject to the Police Facilities Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project can be served by existing facilities and would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, a less than significant impact would occur. iii. Schools?
No Impact. The Project proposes an industrial use and would therefore not result in an increase in the area population. Thus, because of the nature of the Project, there would be no increased demand for schools as a result of the Project. Further, the Project is subject to applicable School Impact Fees to mitigate any impacts. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 175 would not result in the need for new or altered facilities and as a result, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
iv. Parks?
No Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. The Project proposes an industrial use and would not result in a net increase in the area population. Thus, because of the nature of the Project, there would be no increased demand for recreational facilities as a result of the Project that would impact the City’s service standard. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project. v. Other public facilities?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project would not result in an increase in residents that would require other public services such as libraries or post offices. Thus, the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities to provide other public services and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the public services and recreation related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwes t Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 176
4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Fresno Parks and Recreation Department, Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS). The City’s service standard for parks is at least three (3) acres of public parkland per 1,000 resid ents. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Fee which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of construction and acquisition for improvements to park facilities. However, this fee is only applicable to residential development and therefore would not be required for the Project.
4.16.2 Impact Assessment
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. The Project proposes an industrial use and would not result in a net increase in the area population. Thus, th e Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Because the Project would not increase the use of such facilities, it can be presumed that the Project would not result in or accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of such facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 177 b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project proposes an industrial use that does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the public services and recreation related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 178
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
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
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is bound to the north and west by collector roadways, West Church Avenue and South West Avenue. West Church Avenue is a two (2) -lane east-west collector and South West Avenue is a two (2)- lane north-west collector. Traffic volumes on these roadways were collected by Fehr and Peers, spanning a three (3)-year period between June 2014 and May 2017. According to this data, West Church Avenue has an average daily roadway volume of 2,600 and South West Avenue has an average daily roadway volume of 900. At present, no fixed -route transit service, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities serve the Project site.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis was conducted for the Project by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. on June 10, 2021 (Appendix D). Because the Project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, a quantitative VMT analysis is required pursuant to the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted in June 2020. JLB Traffic Engineering therefore conducted a quantitative analysis
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 179 prepared utilizing the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Activity Based Model (ABM). The results of the analysis indicated the Project has an average VMT per employee of 17.60, which is within the City of Fresno’s threshold for com mercial non-retail uses of 22.30 VMT per employee.
The analysis concluded there are no impacts to VMT associated with this Project.
4.17.2 Impact Assessment
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all project level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities . Based on Engineering comments prepared for the project, frontage improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutter, and streetlights will be constructed along West Church Avenue and South West Avenue. The project will include the dedication of property for right -of-way purposes along Church Avenue , West Avenue and Teilman Avenues. The project will also be required to install a signal pole with a 150- watt equivalent LED safety light and an oversize street sign to Public Works Standards at the southeast corner of Church Avenue and West Avenue. , . The Project is also required to submit improvement plans, including roadway improvements, for review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure improvements will be consistent with City standards and plans . These City standards and plans include the Fresno Municipal Code, the Fresno General Plan, the Active Transportation Plan, and Public Works Standards and Specifications. Therefore, through compliance with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system (inclusive of transi t, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Senate B ill (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 p rovisions, 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.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 180 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 estim ate 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 Jun e 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
For a General Plan Amendment or Rezone: The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment or a Rezone, none of the screening criteria may apply, and that the City must evaluate such projects on a case-by-case basis. Here the Project includes both a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone and does not meet the screening criteria. As such, a quantitative VMT analysis is required.
For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The Fresno V MT Thresholds document includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans. These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reductio n of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.
The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional thresholds set by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG). For residential and non -residential (except re tail)
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 181 development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by more than 13% are less than significant. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in VMT per employee compared to existing VMT per employee.
Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a devel opment project are determined using the COG Activity Based Model (ABM), which is a tour-based model.
A quantitative VMT analysis was prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. on June 10, 2021, utilizing the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM). The complete results are in Appendix D. To conduct the Project-specific VMT analysis, the Project’s trip generation, anticipated maximum number of employees, and square footage were used. Based on the results, the Project has an average VMT per employee of 17.60 which is within the City’s VMT threshold for commercial non-retail uses of
22.30 VMT per employee (Table 4-24). The VMT Analysis concludes there are no impacts to VMT associated with the Project because the Project’s anticipated VMT is less than the City’s VMT thresholds.
Table 4-24 Results from VMT Analysis
Project Components Fresno COG plus Project
VMT Results
City of Fresno VMT
Threshold
Significant VMT
Impact?
Commercial Non-Retail 17.60 /employee 22.30 / employee No Source: Fresno COG ABM, City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds for the City of Fresno In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
c) Substantially increase hazar ds due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project design does not contain any geometric design features that would create hazards. Imp lementation of the Project would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network serving the Project site. As discussed under criterion a) above, the Project is subject to standard frontage improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk , which would be designed pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local design standards. Compliance with such standards would ensure that any traffic hazards are minimized. Further, the Project proposes the development of a vacant site that is in an area gener ally characterized by a mix of existing land uses including industrial (north), open space (south and east), and junk yards (west).
The surrounding properties are also planned for a mix of uses including employment (north and west), open space (south), and residential (east). Therefore, the Project does not propose an incompatible use as it is consistent with the existing development in the area and is similar in
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 182 nature to the surrounding uses. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in a le ss than significant impact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, the Ci ty’s Engineering Department and Fire Department have reviewed the Project and imposed standard conditions to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that Project construction requires lane closures, access through West Church Avenue and South West Avenue would be maintained through standard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the transportation and traffic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 183
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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
b) 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 th e resource to a
California Native American tribe.
X
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 184
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, cultural resources are considered “historical resour ces” that meet criteria in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. If a Lead Agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a historical resource, then the project is determined to have a significant impact on the environment. No further environmental review is required if a cultural resource is not found to be a historical resource.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine potential effects of proposed projects on a tribal cultural resource.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic 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.
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 Sec tion 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This list includes tribes that requested notification pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes , including the
Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo
Wah Tribe , on January 1, 2021, which included the required 90 -day time period for tribes to request consultation. The contacted tribes declined consultation.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 185
Record Search
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Info rmation Center (SJVIC) conducted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding area (0.25-mile radius) on October 5, 2020 (SJVIC File Number 20-352). The search results do not show any formally recorded prehistoric or historic archeological resources or historic buildings within the Project area or within the immediate vicinity of the Project area (i.e., 0.25 -mile radius). In addition, no resources that are known to have value to local cultur al groups have been formally reported to the SJVIC. The SJVIC Correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
4.18.2 Impact Assessment
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:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, the Pr oject site does not contain any property or site features that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Sources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures as described in
Section 4.5 would reduce any impacts to less than significant. b) 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 criteri a set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has not been determined by the City of Fresno to be a significant resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and to -date, no substantial information has been provided to the City to indicate otherwise. Further, the Project site, inclusive of site features, is not listed in the California Register of Historical Sources. However, there is some possibility that a non -visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 186 ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures as described in Section 4.5 and below would reduce any impacts to less than significant.
MEIR Mitigation Measure CUL -5: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL-2, and CUL-4.
4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 187
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 188
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is within city limits and thus, will be required to connect to water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.
Water
The City of Fresno Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system. Fresno meets its demand for domestic water from a combination of groundwater, treated surface water, and reclaimed water sources. Groundwater is accessed from the Kings River Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in addition to the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility and Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility. Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s recharge program at the City-owned Leaky Acres, Nielsen Recharge Facility, and smaller facilities in southeast Fresno.
Wastewater
The City of Fresno Wastewater Management Division (WMD) is responsible for the collection, conveyance, treatment, and reclamation of w astewater generated in the Fresno -Clovis metropolitan area. Wastewater treatment and disposal is handled through the City -operated Regional Sewer Agency for the Fresno -Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (North Facility) via a wastewater collection system that consists of gravity sewer pipes, manholes, lift stations, junction structures, and force mains.
Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Mid Valley Disposal.
Stormwater
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) manages stormwater runoff in Fresno.
The major elements of the FMFCD’s flood control system include dams, reservoirs, and detention basins. The FMFCD is responsible for reviewing development proposals to assess drainage and flood control impacts and needs, in addition to determining applicable requirements and modifications needed in order to implement the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
Natural Gas and Electricity
PG&E, the natural gas and electric service provider for the area, incrementally expands and updates its service system as needed to serve its users.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 189 Telecommunications
Accordingly, telecommunications providers in the area incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand.
4.19.2 Impact Assessment
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within city limits and thus, will be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater service s. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. The City and responsible agencies have reviewed the Project to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable connection requirements. Requirements for the Project are as follows:
• Install water service and meter boxes and pay Water Capacity Fee for installation. • Install a sewer house branch to connect to nearby 10 -inch sewer main located in South West Avenue and pay Sewer Connection Charges.
• Install 60 trash enclosures with a service frequency of three (3) times a week to collect the estimated solid waste to be generated by the Project: 607 cubic yards of food waste, 712 cubic yards of recycle, and 712 cubic yards of refuse.
• Construct private facilities to discharge storm water runoff, including temporary facilities for South West Avenue until permanent drainage service is available.
In addition to connections to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services, the Project will be served by PG&E for natural gas and electricity and by the appropriate telecommunications provider for the Project area. Overall, the review of the Project by the City and responsible agencies indicates that the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, would not cause significant environmental effects. Through compliance with the applicable connection requirements, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10 , the City’s long -term water resource planning is addressed in the City’s 2020 UWMP. According to the UWMP, the City’s per capita water usage is projected to continue to decline through 2045 due to more water efficiency
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 190 in future construction and passive conservation pursuant to require ments of the California Plumbing Code (e.g., use of higher efficiency appliances, water efficient landscaping, etc.).
In addition, the City manages its surface water and groundwater supply by maximizing water for potable use and intentional recharge during wet and normal years and relies on groundwater during dry years. To optimize water supply reliability and resiliency, the City is currently undergoing an update of its Metro Plan which will identify projects and programs. Generally, the City’s approach is to maximize local supplies and improve the storage of the groundwater basin through recharge, recycled water usage, and conservation.
The UWMP projects normal water year, single dry water year, and five -year consecutive drought period supplies based on h istoric water allocations, sustainable yields, and utilization of recycled water. Based on these projections, the UWMP found that groundwater supplies remain reliable in all hydrologic conditions, attributing the stability to intentional recharge. The proj ections also show that the City will have greater than 100,000 AF available supply in normal years after meeting demands. In a single dry year, surface water supplies will be reduced but the City would still be able to meet all potable demands. Lastly, for five-year consecutive drought periods, the City is projected to meet all demands with its existing supplies with reduced groundwater recharge in year three (3) and four (4) to accommodate reduced surface water allocations. Based on these projections, it c an be inferred that future development, such as the proposed Project, will not negatively impact the City’s ability to provide water assuming adherence to requirements and recommendations from the City’s water resources planning efforts.
According to the UWMP, the Project site is located in the Southwest Pressure Zone and there is an active City well located near the northeast corner of West Church Avenue and South West Avenue across from the Project site. There are also existing 12-inch public water mains and public fire hydrants in both West Church Avenue and South West Avenue to which the Project can connect. As previously discussed, the Project has been reviewed by the City and is required to install water service and meter boxes to connect to the existing City facilities and pay the Water Capacity Fee for installation. Collectively, these facilities will convey water to and from the Project.
Potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land -use-based unit water demand factors last updated for the City in 2018. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Residential – Medium Density and proposes a change to Employment – Light Industrial. According to the land-use-based unit water demand factors for the City of Fresn o, the medium low density land use has an annual average (ac-ft/yr/acre) of 3.14, compared to 1.84 for the light industrial land use.
Table 4-22 summarizes the total water demands to be expected by land use, indicating that a single-family residential (medium low density) land use would generate approximately 41% greater demand for wat er than the light industrial land use. Given the
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 191 significant reduction in water demand, it can be presumed that the City’s water supply should be adequate to support anticipated demands from the Project.
Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP and the City of Fresno, the proposed Project would generate significantly less water demand than would otherwise occur with the existing land use. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system should be adequ ate to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s long-term wastewater planning is addressed in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) (2015 update). According to the Master Plan, the City manages and maintains more than 1,500 miles of gravity sewer lines up to 84-inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, and associated force mains. Wastewater generated in the sewer service area is conveyed to the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) or the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (North Facility). As of 2020, the RWRF has a capacity of
91.5 mgd (millions of gallons per day) and the North Facility has a capacity of 0.17 mgd (daily average flow). Expansion of these facilities is planned for 2025 or later, based on capacity levels.
Land uses are important to determine adequate sizing and capacity for pipes and facilities, and to maintain effective sanitary sewer system facilities. According to the Master Plan, residential customers in Fresno account for approximately 63 percent of th e current flow (40.2 mgd) and industrial customers account for 17 percent (11.3 mgd). Land use assumptions for wastewater generation rates were based on the full build-out conditions under the General Plan. Accordingly, the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR estimated the rates within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (inclusive of the Project site) based on the Master Plan. Specifically, the Master Plan indicates the medium low density land use is expected to generate 12.4 mgd compared to 1.3 mgd for the light industrial land use classification.
According to the Master Plan, the Project site is within an “area of change” (i.e., West Growth Area) wherein new development will contribute to a net increase in wastewater flows into the collection system. The Master Plan identifies new 8-inch to 15-inch diameter sewers to serve these new planned development areas. These collection system improvements are expected by the
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 192 Master Plan to be driven by future development and when fully implemented, the improvements will allow wastewater conveyance to the treatment plants during build out conditions.
The Project site is also located adjacent to an existing sewer service area served by an existing 10- inch sewer main located in South West Avenue to which the Projec t can connect. And, as previously discussed, the Project has been reviewed by the City and is required to install a sewer house branch to connect to the existing sewer main and pay the Sewer Connection Charges for installation. Collectively, these facilities will convey wastewater generated from the Project.
Overall, based on the information collected from the Master Plan and the City of Fresno, the proposed Project would generate significantly less wastewater than would otherwise occur with the existing land use of medium density residential. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned wastewater collection system should be of adequate capacity to serve the Project. In addition, adherence to connection and fee requirements should not nega tively impact the City’s capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand, especially with the anticipated reduction associated with the proposed land use change. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the estimated solid waste to be generated by the Project includes 607 cubic yards of food waste, 712 cubic yards of recycle, and 712 cubic yards of refuse. Based on this estimated amount, the Project is required by the City to install 60 trash enclosures with a service frequency of three (3) times a week for collection. The Fresno General Plan Public Utilities and Services Element contains policies addressing waste collection and service in compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act. Policies in the Resources Conservation and Resilience Element address waste reduction. These policies are designed to reduce the potential environmental effects associated with solid waste disposal. Compliance with the applicable measures and policies would serve to reduce impacts of solid waste by p romoting regular collection and encouraging the recycling of materials. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criteria d), Project activities that generate solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Theref ore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 193
4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the utilities and service systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 194
4.20 WILDFIRE – IF LOCATED IN OR NEAR STATE RESPONSIBILITY OR LANDS CLASSIFIED AS
VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 195
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
In general, Fresno is categorized as having little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which can be attributed to its impervious surface areas. The area along the San Joaquin River bluff is an exception, as it is prone to wildfires due to steep terrain and native vegetation. The Project site comprises a relatively flat property within the city limits in an area planned for and developed with urban uses, including industrial, business park, and residential uses, and is approximately nine (9) miles south of the San Joaquin River . In addition, the site nor the City of Fresno are identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as being in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). Rather, the city inclusive of the Project site are located i n an “area of local responsibility” that is considered to be an area of low fire risk. 20 4.20.2 Impact Assessment
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? No Impact. The Project would not impair access to the existing roadway network . Safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be provided in addition to adequate access for emergency vehicles. Circulation and emergency vehicle access have been reviewed by the City and it has been determined that the Project would be suitable for such circulation and access.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair any emergency response plan and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
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?
No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not in an area that is subject to strong prevailing winds or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Further, the Project site is within an “area of local responsibility” and is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a VHFHSZ. For these reasons, no impact would occur as a result of this Project.
20 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on July 28, 2021, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 196 • Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Project is located within city limits in an area planned for future development. As a result of ongoing development, infrastructure such as roads and utilities will be installed and maintained accordingly. The Project itself will result in installation and maintenance of new infrastructure that has been reviewed and /or conditioned by the City of Fresno. Such infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and no impact would occur as a result of the Project. • 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? No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not subject to downslope, down stream flooding, or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 197
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 198
4.21.1 Impact Assessment
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. 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.) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and prob able future projects. Due to the nature of the P roject and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project-related impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 199 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, mitigation measures as identified in the attached Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated October 15, 2021.
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
OCTOBER 2021
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). It was certified as part of the Fresno City Council’s approval of the EIR for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (SCH No. 201731012).
Mitigation Measures that have been incorporated from the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) are numbered with “MEIR” as a prefix.
The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation Agency/Department Responsible for Verification
AESTHETICS
MEIR AES-1: Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department
MEIR AES-3: Lighting systems for non-residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low- intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR AES-4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot-Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets that have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.
Prior to issuance of sign permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR AES-5: Materials used on building façades shall be non-reflective. Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation Agency/Department Responsible for Verification
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
AQ-2a: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the project site for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment.
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, or building
permits, whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
AQ-2b: During construction activities, for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
AQ-2c: In order to reduce VOC emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that:
All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand- roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.
Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department
AQ-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
AQ-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2c to further reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.
Prior to issuance of building permits,
commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
AQ-4b: In order to reduce fugitive dust particulate matter emissions during construction activities, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, for projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), but that would be outside the purview of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII, the property owner/developer shall submit a dust control plan consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII requirements that includes, but not limited to the following measures during ground-disturbing activities to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
Disturbed areas (including storage piles) that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover (e.g., revegetated). On-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
Land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled utilizing application of water or by presoaking. Material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained when materials are transported off-site.
Operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.
Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the Plan Area.
Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable.
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, or building permits,
whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
AQ-7: AQ-7: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-4b of the Draft EIR. Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building permits,
whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1.1a: 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 Plan Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, a qualified botanist should conduct botanical surveys to confirm the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species to determine if the habitat supports any special-status species. The surveys should be completed using the reporting and data collection guidelines outlined in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities66 and a report of findings should be submitted to the City and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) before the onset of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation. If a special-status species is determined to occupy any portion of a project site, then any occurrence should be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a disturbance- free buffer zone of a minimum of 50 feet from the outer-edge of the special-status plant populations(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special status plant species. If the buffer zone(s) cannot be maintained, appropriate minimization measures and mitigation measures should be prepared in consultation with CDFW on a case-by-case basis.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.1b: 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 CDFW 2081 and USFWS Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes must 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 a listed species will be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.1c: Development within the Plan 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 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 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.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
BIO-1.2: A qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species should conduct a Swainson’s hawk survey of the project site and the surrounding 0.5-mile-radius area, in substantial compliance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) during the normal bird breeding season (1 February through 15 September) prior to the start of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation, to the extent feasible.
Additional pre-construction Swainson’s hawk surveys should take place no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities.
To mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the project applicant should provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) based on the following ratios, if feasible:
If the project(s) is located within 1 mile of an active nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 1 acre of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized. If the project(s) is located within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 0.75 acres of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized.
If the project(s) is located within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from the nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 0.5 acres of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized.
The project applicant should provide for the long-term management of the HM lands by funding a management endowment, the interest of which should be used for managing the HM lands. The rate per HM acre should be established through consultation with CDFW. In addition to fee title acquisition of grassland habitat, mitigation could occur by the purchase of conservation or suitable agricultural easements. Suitable agricultural easements would include areas limited to production of crops such as alfalfa, dry land and irrigated pasture, and cereal grain crops. Vineyards, orchards, cotton fields, and other dense vegetation do not provide adequate foraging habitat.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO -1.3: No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities the project proponent should retain a USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys in potential habitat periphery of the Plan Area that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development. The survey, reporting, and activities during construction should be in substantial compliance with the requirements contained in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance.66 As described in the standardized recommendations, if a natal/pupping den is discovered within the Plan Area or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the USFWS and CDFW should be immediately notified and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact the USFWS immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
BIO-1.4: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-status Bats and Implement Avoidance Measures. Any medium or larger (≥ 12-inch diameter) trees or snags selected for removal should be inspected by a qualified biologist for presence of potential day-roosting habitat (e.g., cavities exfoliating bark, or basal hollows) for special-status bats or a maternity colony. If feasible, cavities should be examined for roosting bats using a portable camera probe or similar technology.
No more than two weeks before the onset of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation, a qualified bat biologist should conduct pre- construction surveys of all buildings with potential for roosting habitat for supporting special-status bats or a maternity colony should be inspected by a qualified biologist for evidence of roosting colonies. If suitable roosting habitat is present and/or bat sign is observed, but no bats are detected, an evening exit count and acoustic survey using a full spectrum acoustic detector should be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if bats are present and what species are present. If present, roosts (including day roosts, winter hibernacula, and maternity colonies) and a 100- to 300-foot disturbance-free buffer surrounding each roost should be flagged and avoided, as determined by a qualified bat biologist. The 100- to 300-foot disturbance-free buffer should be maintained until the qualified bat biologist can determine that bats no longer use the roost.
If avoidance is not possible, a qualified bat biologist should develop a Bat Eviction Plan in consultation with CDFW for written approval prior to implementation. The Bat Eviction Plan should include exclusion methods, roost removal procedures, and monitoring efforts to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to all ground-disturbing activities and are unable to re-enter the roost.
In addition, replacement habitat appropriate for the species’ roost requirements should be created prior to the roost removal. The qualified bat biologist, in consultation with CDFW, should facilitate the removal of roosting bats outside of the winter hibernation (1 November to 28 February) and maternity roosting (15 March to 31 August) periods through the following means:
1. Implementing eviction during a period of warm (nighttime low>50°F), dry weather, when bats are expected to be active.
2. Opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or building (air flow disturbance).
3. Waiting a minimum of three nights of warm weather, as defined above, for roosting bats to respond to air flow disturbance, thereby allowing bats to leave during nighttime hours when predation risk is relatively low and chances of finding a new roost is greater than in the daytime.
4. Conducting a follow-up survey prior to roost removal to ensure that bats have vacated the roost.
Disturbing roosts at dusk just prior to roost removal the same evening to allow bats to escape during nighttime hours.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
BIO-1.5: Conduct Focused American Badger Surveys and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to American Badger Dens. No more than 30 days before the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist should conduct pre-construction surveys for American badgers within suitable habitat. If a potentially active den is found in a construction area, the den openings may be monitored with tracking medium or an infrared-beam camera for three consecutive nights to determine current use. Potential (inactive) dens within the limits of disturbance should be blocked with a one-way door or excavated to prevent use during construction. Blocking with one-way doors is preferable to excavation where feasible; potential dens blocked with doors will be made available to badgers after construction. If American badgers or active dens are detected during these surveys, the following should be implemented:
If present, occupied badger dens should be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 50 feet of the occupied den during the nonbreeding season (1 July through 14 February).
Flagging that is highly visible by construction crews should encircle the occupied den at the appropriate buffer distance, and should not prevent access to the den by badgers. Dens determined to be occupied during the breeding season (15 February through 30 June) should be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 200 feet to protect adults and nursing young. Buffers may be modified by the qualified biologist, provided the badgers are protected, and should not be removed until the qualified biologist has determined that the den is no longer in use.
If avoidance of an active non-maternity den is not feasible, the qualified biologist should consult with CDFW to determine whether the badger(s) may be evicted. Relocation methods may be implemented by first incrementally blocking the den over a three-day period, followed by slowly excavating the den (either by hand or with mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (15 February through 30 June). Any passive relocation of American badgers should occur only under the direction of a qualified biologist.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.6: Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Implement Avoidance Measures.
A qualified biologist(s) knowledgeable of the species should conduct a focused, preconstruction survey during the peak breeding season for burrowing owls (15 April to 15 July) prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities for the project to determine if burrowing owls are present on the project site and within 250 feet where access allows. The survey should be conducted in substantial compliance with the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC, 1997), or other survey and mitigation protocols recommended by the CDFW, to the extent feasible. All areas of suitable habitat proposed for ground disturbance will be surveyed. If burrowing owls are detected, buffers and mitigation per the Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines will be implemented.
If burrowing owl(s) are found to occupy the site and avoidance is not possible, a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species should conduct burrow exclusion during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping. Burrow closure should be implemented only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with permanent protection mechanisms in place. Ongoing surveillance should be conducted during any Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
initial ground- disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation to monitor colonization of the area by burrowing owls.
BIO-1.7: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle, and Move Individuals to Safety.
Prior to construction, a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist approved by CDFW and that holds a Scientific Collecting Permit to handle western pond turtles) should conduct focused surveys during the western pond turtle egg-laying season (March through August) to determine if western pond turtles are present within 0.25-mile of aquatic and riparian habitat, where accessible. If any pond turtles are detected during these surveys, or during construction in an area where individuals could be affected, they should be allowed to move out on their own volition. If this is not feasible, they should be moved to the nearest suitable habitat immediately upstream or downstream from the project site. The candidate sites for relocation should be identified before construction and should be selected based on the size and type of habitat present, the potential for negative interactions with resident species, and the species’ range.
If any western pond turtle nests with eggs are found, the nests should remain undisturbed until the eggs have hatched.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.8. Proposed projects within the Plan Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500 feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor. Once construction begins, a qualified wildlife biologist should continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from project-related activities.
If continuous monitoring of nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, a disturbance-free buffer zone of a minimum of 250 feet should be delineated around active nests of non-listed bird species and a disturbance-free buffer zone of a minimum of 500 feet should be delineated around active nests of non-listed raptors, or suitable buffer distance approved by the biological monitor.
These buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified wildlife biologist can determine that the bird species or raptors have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these buffers should be considered only after consultation with a qualified wildlife biologist and CDFW.
Prior to commencement of
and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-2.1a: Impacts to riparian habitat should be avoided by delineating a 200-foot disturbance free buffer from the high water mark of a waterbody or waterway or form the outside edge of the riparian habitat and for areas with no riparian vegetation, a minimum 100-foot disturbance-free buffer should be delineated around the high water mark of a waterbody or waterway.
If avoidance is not possible, a compensatory habitat-based mitigation should be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
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 Mitigation Measure Timing of
Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat based mitigation should be determined on an acre-for-acre basis through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS).
BIO-2.1b: 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. In accordance with Fish & Game Code Section 1600 et seq., consultation with CDFW and/or USACE should be initiated to determine the appropriate mitigation strategy and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation); or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-2.1c: Project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a special-status natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special-status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats.
Project impacts to special-status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special-status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.
BIO-3a: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, in accordance with Fish & Game Code Section 1600 et seq., consultation with CDFW and/or USACE should be initiated to determine the appropriate mitigation strategy and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation) (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. In addition, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site.
The delineation should 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 approval of wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Plan Area by the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)). Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation should be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-3b: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices 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 incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Implementation of temporary
construction-related BMPs shall
occur prior to commencement of
and during construction activities;
implementation of long-term
operational BMPs shall occur prior
to issuance of occupancy permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MEIR CUL-1: If previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and an 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 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 archaeologist 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.
During construction activities City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR 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 a 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 Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 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.
Subsequent to a preliminary City
review of the project grading plans
and during construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
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.
MEIR 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 be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or a 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.
Subsequent to a preliminary City
review of the project grading plans
and during construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
MEIR CUL-4: 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 During construction activities City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
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. Applicable regulations and procedures described above, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, would ensure that any human remains discovered during construction would be handled appropriately.
CUL-5: Implement Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-4. See Mitigation Measures MEIR CUL- 1, MEIR CUL-2, and MEIR CUL-4.
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2b as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: During construction activities, for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.
See Mitigation Measure AQ-2b.
HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h, described later in the section under Impact HAZ-4, would reduce potential impacts to schools.
In addition, as stated in the discussions of Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, procedures, and policies would avoid potential impacts associated with hazardous materials handling, use, and storage in the Plan Area. Compliance with these regulations, procedures, and policies would ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, thereby reducing potential risks to nearby schools.
See Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a
through HAZ-4h.
HAZ-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become
the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
HAZ-4b: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials. The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4c: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4d: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department and
Fresno County Department
of Environmental
Health Services
HAZ-4e: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.
Prior to issuance of building permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
HAZ-4f: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ4-4e).
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4g: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos- containing materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.
Prior to issuance of demolition permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department and the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control
District
HAZ-4h: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements, prior to importing to such a property.
Prior to soil import City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
NOISE
NOISE-2a: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 50 feet of off-site structures, shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
Prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
NOISE-2b: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If construction- related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non- explosive rock blasting). Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
Prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.
Prior to issuance of construction
permits and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
NOISE-4b: Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, applicants for individual development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The analysis shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that will be used for demolition and grading activities is determined. The project-level noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Director. If the analysis determines that demolition and construction activities would result in an impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to attenuate the noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Director. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:
Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Fresno Community Development Director and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and logged. Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of the day. Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes. Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.
Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
Prior to issuance of demolition, grading
/or construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible. To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.
Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload and idling for long periods of time.
Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes from causing vehicular noise. Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and hoe rams.
Where possible, use concrete crushers or pavement saws rather than hoe rams for tasks such as concrete or asphalt demolition and removal.
The final noise-reduction measures to be implemented and their associated details shall be determined by the construction-level noise analysis. The final noise-reduction measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and/or construction management plans and submitted for verification to the City; implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of the construction phase; and discussed at the pre-demolition, -grade, and/or - construction meetings.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
MEIR PS-5: As future school facilities are planned, the school districts shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from school facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts includes:
Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on school sites.
Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures for stadium lights.
Prior to issuance of construction
permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
PS-7: As new development occurs in the Plan Area, the City shall periodically (every 5 years) monitor residential population growth compared to development of new parklands for the purpose of evaluating the strength of this Plan to meet the ratio of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If the ratio is not met, the City shall explore additional ways to increase the amount of dedicated parkland in the Plan Area, including but not limited to designating additional lands for parkland development.
At 5-year intervals during
implementation of the proposed
Plan, through the year 2042
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. See Mitigation Measure PS-7.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TRANS-7.1: Provide transportation improvements consistent with General Plan Policy MT-1-j in the Plan Area that would encourage non-vehicular transportation and reduce auto traffic levels. These improvements shall be consistent with the goals and policies in the proposed Plan, which require the implementation of complete streets, bikeways, trails, sidewalks, and enhanced transit service to support transit use, biking, and walking as viable modes of travel. By supporting and encouraging these non-auto modes in lieu of auto travel, future traffic levels would be reduced.
The City of Fresno shall also apply General Plan Policy MT -1-o, which allows LOS E or F conditions outside of identified multimodal districts if provisions are made to sufficiently improve the overall transportation system and promote non-vehicular transportation. With the application of General Ongoing City of Fresno Public Works
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
Plan policy MT-1-o, the LOS F conditions on Church Avenue and LOS E conditions on North Avenue would be considered acceptable.
NS-7.2: Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. The City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue interchange and SR- 41/North Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program and any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound off-ramp to add an additional left-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated through lane.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit westbound U-turn movement to allow the northbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the eastbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the east leg that traps into the SR-99 southbound on-ramp. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the lane configurations on the northbound off-ramp to a dedicated left-turn pocket and shared through-right turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit eastbound U-turn movement to allow the southbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the westbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the west leg that traps into the SR-99 northbound on-ramp. - Change the phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches to protected left- turn movements and separate.
SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-41 southbound off-ramp to add a left-turn pocket. - Change the lane configurations on the southbound off-ramp to convert the existing shared through-left turn lane to a shared right turn-through-left turn lane. - Extend the right-turn pocket on the off-ramp to accommodate right-turn queue length shown in Table 4.14-16.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared right turn-through-left turn lane, and one right-turn lane. - Widen the eastbound approach to add a third through lane that traps into the eastbound left- turn onto the SR-41 northbound on-ramp.
In addition to addressing intersection operations, the changes identified above also address freeway off-ramp queuing impacts identified in Impact TRANS-7.3 below. With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these three intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-16 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).
Ongoing
Note: State Route 99 and State
Route 41 are under Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the
implementation and timing of
Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2 is
not fully under the City’s control.
Caltrans, Fresno Council of
Governments, City of Fresno
Public Works Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
While these changes would improve traffic operations to an acceptable LOS, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.
In addition to the three intersections at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue and SR-41/North Avenue interchanges that operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions, the following improvements would address unacceptable LOS E operations at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange:
SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound frontage road to add an additional right-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing through lane as a shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared through left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes.
SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Add a through lane to the westbound approach on Fresno Street that traps into the left- turn onto the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.
- Adding the third through lane on Fresno Street would require removing the existing raised median and prohibiting eastbound left-turns at the Fresno Street/E Street intersection.
With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these two intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table
4.14-17 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).
While the intersection and ramp changes at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange would improve intersection LOS, physical constraints on the SR-99 southbound frontage road would make the proposed widening of the southbound approach infeasible.
TRANS-7.3: Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. In addition to the recommended improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, the City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program and any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the existing shared left-right turn lane on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated right-turn lane SR-99 southbound off-ramp
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes
Ongoing
Note: State Route 41 is under Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the implementation
and timing of Mitigation Measure
TRANS-7.3 is not fully under the City’s
control.
Caltrans, Fresno Council of
Governments, City of Fresno
Public Works Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
- Add a southbound right-turn phase to run concurrently with the eastbound through phase by taking green time from the westbound through phase
The implementation of the changes to the SR-41 southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue listed above would reduce queuing on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp. These changes in combination with the improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-99/Fresno Street interchange listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, would reduce freeway off-ramp queuing under cumulative conditions.
Table 4.14-18 in Chapter 4.14 presents the estimated freeway off-ramp queues with the improvements presented in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2 and TRANS-7.3 (refer to Appendix H for calculations). While these changes would reduce the 95th percentile queues on freeway off-ramps to within the available storage on the off-ramp, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MEIR USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a wastewater master plan update. Prior to wastewater conveyance and treatment demand exceeding capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-2: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements. Construct an approximately 70 MGD expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased. Construct an approximately 0.49 MGD expansion of the North Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
Prior to exceeding existing wastewater
treatment capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-3: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided.
After approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements. Construct an approximately 24 MGD Wastewater Treatment Facility within the Southeast Development Area and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
Construct an approximately 9.6 MGD expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
Prior to exceeding existing wastewater
treatment capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-4: A Traffic Control/Traffic Management Plan to address traffic impacts during construction of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared and implemented subject to approval by the City prior to construction. The plan shall identify hours of construction and for deliveries, include haul routes, identify access and parking restrictions, plan for notifications, identify pavement markings and signage, and plan for coordination with emergency service providers and schools.
Prior to construction of water and
sewer facilities
City of Fresno Public Works
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
MEIR USS-5: Prior to exceeding existing water supply capacity, the City shall evaluate the water supply system and shall not approve additional development that demand additional water until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
Construct an approximately 80 million gallon per day (MGD) surface water treatment facility near the intersection of Armstrong and Olive Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update Phase 2 Report, January 2012 (2012 Metro Plan Update).
Construct an approximately 30 MGD expansion of the existing northeast surface water treatment facility for a total capacity of 60 MGD, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct an approximately 20 MGD surface water treatment facility in the southwest portion of the City, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Prior to exceeding existing water
supply capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-6: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing wastewater collection system facilities, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
Orange Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Dakota and Jensen Avenues.
Approximately 37,240 feet of new sewer main shall be installed and approximately 5,760 feet of existing sewer main shall be rehabilitated. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 27- inches to 42-inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are RS03A, RL02, C01-REP, C02-REP, C03-REP, C04-REP, C05-REP, C06-REL and C07- REP.
Marks Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Clinton Avenue and Kearney Boulevard. Approximately 12,150 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 33 inches to 60 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CM1-REP and CM2-REP. North Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Polk and Fruit Avenues and also between Orange and Maple Avenues. Approximately 25,700 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 48 inches to 66 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CN1-REL1 and CN3-REL1. Ashlan Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Hughes and West Avenues and also between Fruit and Blackstone Avenues. Approximately 9,260 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 24 inches to 36 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CA1-REL and CA2-REP.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing wastewater collection system
facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department
Responsible for
Verification
MEIR USS-7: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing 28 pipeline segment shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix J-1 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of one of the 28 pipeline segments until additional capacity is provided.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing 28 pipeline segments shown
on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix J-1 of
the Fresno General Plan MEIR
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-8: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided.
The following capacity improvements shall be provided by approximately 2025. Construct 65 new groundwater wells, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct a 2.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T2) near the intersection of Clovis and California Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T3) near the intersection of Temperance and Dakota Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T4) in the Downtown Planning Area, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T5) near the intersection of Ashlan and Chestnut Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T6) near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Highway 99, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Construct 50.3 miles of regional water transmission mains ranging in size from 24-inch to 48-inch, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update. Construct 95.9 miles of 16-inch transmission grid mains, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing water conveyance facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR USS-9: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided.
The following capacity improvements shall be provided after approximately the year 2025 and additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan Update.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing water conveyance facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
UTIL-3: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3. See Mitigation Measures MEIR USS-1 through MEIR USS-3.
UTIL-4: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-9. See Mitigation Measures MEIR USS-1 through MEIR USS-9.
MEIR USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.
Prior to exceeding landfill capacity City of Fresno Public Utilities Department
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 200 6 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:
Lead Agency - City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Initial Study Consultant - Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. 1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Contacts:
Bonique Emerson, AICP, Vice President of Planning
[email protected]
Shin Tu, Associate Planner
[email protected]
Technical Studies, Traffic - JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
Technical Studies, Air Quality - Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 6780 North West Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93711
Contact:
Elena Nuño, Principal Air Quality Scientist/Project Manager (559) 355-0580
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 201 7 APPENDICES
INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MARCH 202 2
CITY OF FRESNO – Busseto Foods Processing, Warehousing, and Distribution Facility Project | 202 Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. dated October 14, 2021.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact
Assessment
Busseto Foods Project
October 14, 2021
Prepared for:
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact: Bonique Emerson, AICP,
Planning Division Manager
559.449.4500
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
6780 North West Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93711
Contact: Elena Nuño, Principal Air
Quality Scientist/Project Manager
559.355.0580
() Stantec
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
i
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................III
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1.1
1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................................................................... 1.1
1.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 1.1
2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2.2
2.1 PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2.2
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2.2
2.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Existing Conditions ......................................... 2.2
3.0 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 3.1
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 3.1
3.1.1 Climate Topography .................................................................................... 3.1
3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants .................................................................................. 3.2
3.1.3 Odors ........................................................................................................ 3.11
3.1.4 Toxic Air Contaminants ............................................................................. 3.11
3.1.5 Valley Fever .............................................................................................. 3.14
3.1.6 Attainment Status ...................................................................................... 3.14
3.1.7 Ambient Air Quality ................................................................................... 3.15
3.1.8 Local Sources of Air Pollution.................................................................... 3.17
3.1.9 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................. 3.17
3.2 REGULATORY SETTING .......................................................................................... 3.18
3.2.1 Federal ...................................................................................................... 3.18
3.2.2 State ......................................................................................................... 3.18
3.2.3 Regional .................................................................................................... 3.21
3.2.4 Local ......................................................................................................... 3.24
4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS ................................................................................................... 4.1
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 4.1
4.1.1 Local ........................................................................................................... 4.1
4.1.2 Global Warming Potential ............................................................................ 4.3
4.1. 3 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................... 4.3
4.1.4 Effects of Global Climate Change ............................................................... 4.5
4.2 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................ 4.5
4.2.1 Federal ........................................................................................................ 4.5
4.2.2 State ........................................................................................................... 4.8
4.2.3 Regional .................................................................................................... 4.17
5.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................... 5.1
5.1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT AND GHG MODEL SELECTION .................................... 5.1
5.2 AIR POLLUTANTS AND GHGS ASSESSED ............................................................... 5.1
5.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Assessed ....................................................................... 5.1
5.2.2 GHGs Assessed.......................................................................................... 5.2 ■
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ii
5.3 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 5.2
6.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 6.1
6.1 CEQA GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... 6.1
6.2 AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 6.2
7.0 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................. 7.1
7.1 CEQA GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... 7.1
7.2 GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 7.4
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 8.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................... 3.3 Table 2: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status ....................................................... 3.15 Table 3: Ambient Air Quality Summary .................................................................................. 3.16 Table 4: CalEEMod Land Use Development Summary Table for the Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 5.3 Table 5: Project Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 5.4 Table 6: Project Construction Equipment ............................................................................ 5.4 Table 7: Construction Vehicle Trips ..................................................................................... 5.6 Table 8: SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds ............................................................................ 6.2 Table 9: Construction Emissions – Unmitigated ....................................................................... 6.6 Table 10: Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants – Unmitigated ............. 6.7 Table 11: Localized Concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Construction ............ 6.12 Table 12: Estimated Trucking Numbers ................................................................................. 6.14 Table 13: Health Risks from the Proposed Project at the Maximally Exposed Sensitive Receptor .................................................................................................................. 6.18 Table 14: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 7.5 Table 16: Project Consistency with Applicable SJVAPCD CCAP GHG Reduction Measures ................................................................................................................. 7.10 Table 17: Project Consistency with Applicable Tulare COG Goals ......................................... 7.10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Site .................................................................................................... 2.3 Figure 2: GHG Emissions by Economic Sector ............................................................ 4.4 Figure 3: Project Site with Sensitive Receptors within 1,000 Feet . Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4: Project Site with a 1,000 Foot Buffer ........................................................... 6.16
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Criteria Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment
■
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
μg/m3
AB
ACBMs
ATCMs
AQGGP
AQI
AQP
BACT
BAU
BPS
CAAQS
CalEEMod
CalEPA
CAPCOA
CARB
CCAA
CEQA
CF4
CH4
CO
CO2
C2F6
C3F8
C4F10
C4F8
C5F12
C6F14
DPM
DRRP
EO
EPA
FCAA
GAMAQI
GHG
GWP
HAP
HFC
H2S
LCFS
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Assembly Bill
Asbestos-Containing Building Materials
Airborne Toxic Control Measures
Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans
Air Quality Index
Air Quality Plan
Best Available Control Technology
Business-As-Usual
Best Performance Standards
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
California Air Resources Board
California Clean Air Act
California Environmental Quality Act
Perfluoromethane
Methane
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Perfluoroethane
Perfluoropropane
Perfluorobutane
Perfluorocyclobutane
Perfluoropentane
Perfluorohexane
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
Executive Order
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Clean Air Act
Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts Greenhouse Gases
Global Warming Potential
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Hydrofluorocarbons
Hydrogen Sulfide
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
■
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
iv
LOS
MMT
MMTCO2e
MTCO2e
NAAQS
NESHAP
NF3
N2O
NOA
NOX
NO2
O3
OAL
Pb
PEIR
PERP
PFCs
PG&E
PM
PM2.5
PM10¬
ppb
ppm
ROG
RPS
RTP
SB
SCS
SF6
SIL
SJVAB
SJVAPCD
SO2
SO4
SOX
TAC
VMT
VOC
Level of Service
Million Metric Tons
Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Nitrogen Trifluoride
Nitrous Oxide
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Oxides of Nitrogen
Nitrogen Dioxide
Ozone
Office of Administrative Law
Lead
Program Environmental Impact Report
Portable Equipment Registration Program
Perfluorocarbons
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Particulate Matter
Fine particulate matter; particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller Particulate matter; particulate matter 10 microns or smaller parts per billion
parts per million
Reactive Organic Gases
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Regional Transportation Plan
Senate Bill
Sustainable Communities Strategy
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Significant Impact Level
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfates
Sulfur Oxides
Toxic Air Contaminants
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Volatile Organic Compounds
■
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Executive summary
October 14, 2021
1.1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy impact analysis was prepared to evaluate whether construction and operation of the Lombardi Development in Porterville, California would cause significant impacts with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy in the Project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.).
1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Busseto Foods proposes to construct and operate a new 477,470 square foot industrial warehouse project (Project) for the purpose of manufacturing dried, cured meats. The project includes merging two parcels and a General Plan Amendment from Residential to Light Industrial. Currently, Busseto Foods owns and operates three facilities around Fresno, the proposed Project will combine all operations under one roof.
1.2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Impact AIR-1: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact AIR-2: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact AIR-3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact AIR-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact GHG-1: The Project would not generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact GHG-2: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Less Than Significant Impact.
IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction
October 14, 2021
2.2 2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS
The purpose of this Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment Technical Study (Study) is to analyze potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts that could occur from the construction and operation of the Busseto Foods Project. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to construct and operate a new industrial building within the City of Fresno. Busseto Foods currently operates at three facilities within Fresno: 1090 W.
Church, 1351 N. Crystal, and 2413 S. Fruit Avenue. The Project will develop a 477,470 square foot industrial building along West Church, across from the existing facility. The Project will house all operations and remove the need for three separate facilities. The proposed project includes the following components:
• Construction of a 477,470 square foot industrial building • General Plan Amendment from Residential to Light Industrial • Merging of two parcels into the Project site
2.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Existing Conditions
The Project site is currently in use with primarily agricultural activities. The proposed site is surrounded by the following land uses:
• North: Existing Busseto Foods facility.
• South: Ponding Basin.
• East: Vacant, farmed property.
• West: Auto dismantling facility.
IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction
October 14, 2021
2.3 Figure 1: Project Site
IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.1 3.0 AIR QUALITY
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) regulates air quality in eight counties including: Fresno, Kern, (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.
Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural (non-anthropogenic) activities that produce emissions. Air pollution from significant anthropogenic activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources.
Activities that tend to increase mobile activity include increases in population, increases in general traffic activity (including automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and rail), urban sprawl (which will increase commuter driving distances), and general local land management practices as they pertain to modes of commuter transportation. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.
3.1.1 Climate Topography
The following information is excerpted from the most recent version of the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing, and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015a).
The SJVAB has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year. The SJVAB is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the SJVAB form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Basin, it mixes with the air pollution IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.2 generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
Generally, the temperature of air decreases with height, creating a gradient from warmer air near the ground to cooler air at elevation. This gradient of cooler air over warm air is known as the environmental lapse rate. Inversions occur when warm air sits over cooler air, trapping the cooler air near the ground. These inversions trap pollutants from dispersing vertically and the mountains surrounding the San Joaquin Valley trap the pollutants from dispersing horizontally. Strong temperature inversions occur throughout the SJVAB in the summer, fall, and winter. Daytime temperature inversions occur at elevations of 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the San Joaquin Valley floor during the summer and at 500 to 1,000 feet during the winter. The result is a relatively high concentration of air pollution in the valley during inversion episodes. These inversions cause haziness, which in addition to moisture may include suspended dust, a variety of chemical aerosols emitted from vehicles, particulates from wood stoves, and other pollutants. In the winter, these conditions can lead to carbon monoxide “hotspots” along heavily traveled roads and at busy intersections. During summer’s longer daylight hours, stagnant air, high temperatures, and plentiful sunshine provide the conditions and energy for the photochemical reaction between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
X), which results in the formation of ozone.
Because of the prevailing daytime winds and time-delayed nature of ozone, concentrations are highest in the southern portion of the Basin. Summers are often periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, while winter air quality impacts tend to be localized and can consist of (but are not exclusive to) odors from agricultural operations; soot or smoke around residential, agricultural, and hazard-reduction wood burning; or dust near mineral resource recovery operations.
3.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
For the protection of public health and welfare, the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) required that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various pollutants. These pollutants are referred to as "criteria" pollutants because the EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient air. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time, such as one hour, eight hours, 24 hours, or one year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. Standards established for the protection of human health are referred to as primary standards; whereas standards established for the prevention of environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. The FCAA allows states to adopt additional or more health-protective standards. The air quality regulatory framework and ambient air IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.3 quality standards are discussed in greater detail later in this report. Table 1 provides a summary of the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table 1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
Ozone
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) —
Same as Primary
Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate Matter
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m3 —
Fine Particulate
Matter
24 Hour — 35 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) —
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) —
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) — —
Nitrogen Dioxide
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
3 Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300
μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Annual Arithmetic
Mean — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas) —
Lead
30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Rolling 3-Month
Average — 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility-Reducing
Particles 8 Hour See Footnote 1
No National Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) —
IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.4 Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Primary Secondary
Notes:
1 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016c
The following provides a summary discussion of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants of primary concern. In general, primary pollutants are directed emitted into the atmosphere, and secondary pollutants are formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a reactive gas consisting of three atoms of oxygen. Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere.
The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system.
Ozone, a colorless gas which is odorless at ambient levels, is the chief component of urban smog. Ozone is not directly emitted as a pollutant but is formed in the atmosphere when hydrocarbon and NO
X precursor emissions react in the presence of
sunlight. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in ozone formation. Generally, low wind speeds or stagnant air coupled with warm temperatures and cloudless skies provide the optimum conditions for ozone formation. As a result, summer is generally the peak ozone season. Because of the reaction time involved, peak ozone concentrations often occur far downwind of the precursor emissions. Therefore, ozone is a regional pollutant that often impacts a large area (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2001).
Sources of precursor gases number in the thousands and include common sources such as consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and combustion byproducts of various fuels. Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NO X most
commonly originate from motor vehicles, as well as commercial and industrial uses.
Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. High levels of ozone may negatively affect immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Long-term exposure to ozone is linked to aggravation of asthma and is IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.5 likely to be one of many causes of asthma development. Long-term exposures to higher concentrations of ozone may also be linked to permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung development in children. People most at risk from breathing air containing ozone include people with asthma, children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers. In addition, people with certain genetic characteristics, and people with reduced intake of certain nutrients, such as vitamins C and E, are at greater risk from ozone exposure (EPA 2021a).
Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases, including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ROGs. ROGs include all hydrocarbons except those exempted by CARB.
Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations.
VOCs are like ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal law.
Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.
The primary health effects related to hydrocarbons stem from ozone (see discussion above). High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. There are no separate national or California ambient air quality standards for ROG. Carcinogenic forms of ROG, such as benzene, are also considered toxic air contaminants (TACs).
Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of nitrogen (NOX).” NO2 is the component of greatest interest and the indicator for the larger group of NOX. It forms quickly from emissions from cars, trucks, and buses, powerplants, and off-road equipment. NOX is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid as well as toxic organic nitrates.
NOX is emitted from solvents and combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures. Mobile sources (including on-road and off-road vehicles) and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers, constitute a majority of the statewide NO
X emissions. To a lesser extent, area-wide sources, such as residential heaters, gas stoves, and managed burning and disposal, also contribute to total state- wide NO
X emissions (CARB 2010). NOX is also linked to the formation of ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution (see discussion above for ozone and particulate pollution for additional discussion of health-related impacts).
IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.6 Direct inhalation of NOX can cause a wide range of health effects. NOX can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Short-term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of NO2 may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with pre-existing respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children. Long-term exposures to NO
2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory
infection and may cause irreversible lung damage. Other health effects are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOX can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to the production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOX can also impair visibility.
NOX also contributes to a wide range of environmental effects both directly and indirectly when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication (a condition that promotes excessive algae growth, which can lead to a severe depletion of dissolved oxygen and increased levels of toxins that are harmful to aquatic life).
Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased levels of soluble aluminum, which is toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates low pH conditions and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
NO
X also contributes to haze and visibility impairment (EPA 2019a, CARB 2016a).
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a mixture of substances that includes elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, sulfates, and organic compounds; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and soil. PM2.5 includes fine particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller and is a subset of PM10. These particles come in many sizes and shapes and can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks, or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere of chemicals such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industries, and automobiles. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution in the country (EPA 2019a, CARB 2016a).
Area-wide sources account for about 65 and 83% of the statewide emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM10, respectively. The major area-wide sources of PM2.5 and IJ
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Air Quality
October 14, 2021
3.7 PM10 are fugitive dust, especially dust from unpaved and paved roads, agricultural operations, and construction and demolition. Sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations, and dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads. Sources of PM2.5 include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes.