Fresno City Council
November 3, 2022

Information Expires 1/3/2021
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-4
7122/2020 IP aC: Resources
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Last login July 22, 2020 10:07 AM MDT
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as cruse resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional sitespecific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands~ for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Project information
NAME
180239.02

LOCATION
Fresno, Madera and Tulare counties, California
'·"'""'' lidvat.tl, .. 1.....,.,..,.,,.

DESCRIPTION
Residential housing devleopmentwith small road bridge construction over canal.

Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
hit ps:/lec:os. f.As.gov/ipac/project/AP INX Q206VE T LP 30 XYLE H3PS 2U/resources 1/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-5
712212020
I.. {916)414-6600
~ {916)414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage w Sacramento CAay, Reem W-2605 ' 95825-1846 IP..:: Ruot fOU
l~ :HtCO.J.~$f!OU ip.t~fO!tCUo. PI mOl Xl6VfTlPXI XVLfH3PS2U.-.. ,,.,.sot 10e$ 2"8 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-6
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only ancl cloes not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primaiy information used to generate this list is the known or expected range cf each species.

Additional areas cf in nuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside cf the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream cf a fish population, even if that fish does net cccu rat the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water now d cwnstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. Tc fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and pro,l~ specific in formation is often required. , \
Section 7 cf the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request cf the Se~ tary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may b~ esent in the area cf such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, ! und~ o\ licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fu Ifill\ L'\s requj,rement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either ljj£_R'egu1-,10()( Resiew section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. [..: .....,, For project evaluations that require USPNS c~ cu~ eQGe!,[.eview, please return to the I Pac website and request an official species list by doing t~ cl~ wii:,:,

1. Log in LC IPaC.

2. Go to your My Projects list.

3. Click PROJECT HOM-5 fpr l~_ii Picjecl.

4. Click REQUEST SP~ ~'W:'
Listed speciesi<nd their critical habitats are managed by the~jcal ~ervjces progrwcf the u.s.

Fish an d'wlldlife Service (USPNS) and the fisheries division cf the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminitt.wJcn (NOAA FisherieS4).

Spesies and critical habitats under the sole responsibility cf NOAA Fisheries are not sh own on this list.

Please contact NOAA fiShPCies ror !\PPtjPS uOdPC theiciudsdictioo.

1. Species listed underth e frulao~ S.p•cj•s Act are threatened or endangered; I Pac also shows species that are candidates, or prcpcsed,fcr listing. See the.listing status Rll&e. for more in rorrnation.

2. NOAA Fjsh•rj•s also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS), is an office cf the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department cf Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals

NAME STATUS
'~ 'llt00$.-,,;$90utpa~roltCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-7
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Fisher Pekania pennanti
No critical habilal has bee,-. desigl"aled for this species. l'lllps:JJecos.fws e;ov/ecpl!P.:ecies/36S1
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Ttie,e is fin.al c1ilical l'labital for ttiis species. Your locatio,.. is outside the c,ilic.al habilal.
b.UosPerns fws tP1«emJmecirsts1 SQ
San Joaquin Kil Fox Vulpes matrolis mutica
No c1ilical l'labital has bee,-. desig,-.aled for this species. hltps:JJecos.fws gov/ecpW.ecies/2873
Birds
NA.!',,1E
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyws americanus Threatened
ThPtP i" f\rnf\nl:Prl rtilir;il h;ihii;:il ftH lhi._ ,;ppriP'- Vnur lnr;ilinn ;,. ~ oulside tl'le critical l'labil.al. '\. ''- __ I
hltpsclletos.fws.gov/ecplsP.ec;es/3911 .,.V V"
Reptiles
NAME ... -:,~s
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Ga.mbelia s~
No critical habitat !'las bee dii1i"g,-.:aled for this species . .!:!!.tps:JJecos.fws gov/ec ~eciesJ 2S - . Giant Garte<S_bake ( mnophis gigas No fmt•al tia'BJtal has bee,.. desig,-.aled for this species . ••
Amphibians
NAME
CaliFornia Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Ttie,e is fin.al critical habilal for lhis species. Your localio,.. is outside the critic.al habilal.

CaliFornia Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Ttie,e is fin.al critical habilal for lhis species. Your localio,.. is outside the critic.al habitat.
hllps:JJecos.fws e;ov/ecpl!P.:ecies/2076
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Threatened
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-8
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Fishes
NAME
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
The,e is fil\al crilical habilal for I his species. Your localior, is outside lhe critical habitat.
hllps:J/ec os.fws gov/ecpl!P.;ecies/321
Crustaceans
NAt~E
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
The,e is fil)al c1ilical habitat for ltiis species. Your locatior, is oulside lhe crilical l'labital.
ht lps:J/ec os.fws eov/ecpW.ecies/82.46
Vernal Peel Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Tl'le,e is final crilical l'labilal for this species. Your localior, is outside lhe critical habilal.
bJJod/ues for; ePvtecPa.DeciestA98
Vernal Peel Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Tl'le,e is final crilical l'labilal for this species. Your l) lioi,:-i.Q_ulside tti e crilital habitat
hllR:rJJCEAS fws eov/eco/mecies/22"'§ r
J
Flowering Plants
NAJ'.,i E .lflll/'
Fleshy ~ -clever ~ stilleja campestrisssp. succulent•
~ e,e is final c,rilical habilal for this species. Your localior, overlaps the crilic~ a'l:)ilal.
'1,11nYllecos fws eo1,lemlmecie'ifS09S
Greene's Tuctoria Tuttoria greenei
Ti"iere is final c1ilical habitat for Lllis species. Your localior, is oulside the critic.al l'labilal.
b.LJoyflerns fws eo1tlecJW.qecie'if' sn
Hairy Orcutt Grass Orculli• pilosa
The,e is fil)al crilical habilal for Lllis species. Your localior, is outside tti e critical tiabilal.
hllP'i·Uec% fws emaemlmeries1??62
Hartweg's Golden Sunburst Pseudobahia ba hiifoli•
No crilical habitat !'las beer, desigr,aled for this species . .lUJod/rcos fws enl'IPEP4oeciu/179&
'~ 'lltOOS.i.i$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-9
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Keck's Checker-mallow Sidalcea kecl<ii
There is fi~al critical habilal for this species. Your local ion is oulside lh e crilital habitat.
hllmrJJues fws eov/cco/mecicd5ZQ:?
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii
No crilical habilal has been designaled for lhis species. b.UosPerns fws tP1«emJmecirsl2911
San Joaquin Orcutt Grass Orcuttia inaequalis
The,e is fil)al c1ilical habilal for I his species. Your location is oulside lhe crilic.al habital.
hllod/ues fw:; eev/eco/rneciesl'-'-06
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Critical habitats \c~
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along .,}rith the(gni ngered species themselves.

This location overlaps the critical habitat for the following spec~es\ V NAJ'.AE V TYPE
Final
IVligratory~r@
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actl and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.I..

Any p-erso~ organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The .Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds orconseNation Concern http·l/10000w fws gov/bicds/mana?PCOPOt/roaaaged·SPPtiPS/ birdS-Qf·coose0taliOO·CQQ!'f;!CQ PhP
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds h 11 P' lhccwv fws gov/bicds/maoageroPOt/PcQ.iert ·assessmPot ·tools-aod-g11id aore' roose0tat ion-measures PhP
• Nationwide con seNation measures for birds
h ttp://www.fws.gov/migratorvbird slpdf/man age men tlnationwidestandard conservationmeasures.pdf '~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2U/ttsot ~$ Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-10
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the lJSPNS Bjrds or Conseryatjon Con,ern IBCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the le>Jels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ~ This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee th at every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bjnj data roaA!liOg,t.QQ[(lip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, in eluding how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found ~ -
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimi,ation measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRES EM CE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your P.~ Ct area.

NAt~E
Bald Ea~le Ha7.eetut leucocephalus
l / ' ( is r,~ a Bl!,d ofCor,se,valior, Cor,cerr, (BC() ir, ti'ais area, but warr atitsJ th?r,tio,, because of ttae Eagle Acl or for poler,ti31 susceptibilities ir, off sho, e areas f,orn certair, types of developrner,t or acUvilies .
.lUJBSPC£A$ fays ePYIPERfioeEics/1 626
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
This is a Bird ofCor,se1valior, Cor,cerr, (BC() or,ly ir, particular Bi1d Cor,se,valior, Regior, s (BCRs} iti the cor, lir,er,l-31 lJ SA hll2d/uo1 fws emtlerntsoecie'ifqz;n
California Thrasher Toxo~toma redivivum
This is a Bird ofCor,se1valior, Cor,cerr, (BC() tta,oughout its rar,ge ir, the cor,lir,er,lal lJSA ar,d Alaska.
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ BREE DING.SEASON (IF I,; .

BREE DING SEASON IS INDICATED
:~~ ~;E~:~~~~;, Tl IC
ROE CT AREA SOME TIME \NITHIN

THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VE RY LIBERA!.

ESTIMATE Of THE DATES INSIDE

WHICH THE BIRO BREEDS ACROSS
ITS ENTIRE RANGE. .BREEDS
El SEWHE RE . INDICATES TK~T THE

BIRO DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN
YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Mar 1 5 to Aug 31
Breeds Jan 1 to Ju I 31
ms
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-11
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Clark's Grebe Aethmophorus tlarkii
This is a Bird ofCorise1valiol"I Col"lce,,.. (BCC) throughout its r;~l"lge il"I the col"ltil"lel"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska.

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trithas sinuosa
This is a Bird of CoMervaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) Ol"lly il"I particular Bi,d Col"lservaliol"I Regiol"I s (BCRs} il"I lhe col"l lil"lel"lt.3I lJ SA b.UosPerns fws tP1«emJmeciesl2024
Costa's Hummingbird Calypte tostae
This is a Bird of CoMervaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) Ol"lly il"I particular Bi,d Co,..servaliol"I Regiol"I s (BCRs} il"I the co,.. lil"lel"lt.al lJ SA hllod/ues fw:; eov/eto/rnecieslq.11N
Golden Eagle Aquila thrysaetos
Tllis is l"lola Bird ofCol"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) il"l lhis area, but warr al"lls allel"llio,.. because of the Eagle Act or for potel"ltial susceptibilities il"I offslloreareas from certail"l types ofdevelopniel"ll or hllps:/Jecos.fws gov/ecpl!P.;ecies/1 600
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrentei
Ti"iis is a Bi1d of Col"lse1valiol"I Col"lterl"I (BCC) througllout its ~ar,ge il"I the col"llil"lel"ltal USA al"ld Alaska. (
b.U2dlUAS fws eo1!(erpfs,qeciu/9A§4 r
Lewis's Woodpecker Me~~-l~ is
Ti"i is is a Bi1d of Co1"1se1valiol"I aJdce,,.. (BCC) througllou I its r al"lge il"I Ille col"ltil"lel"ltal I.JS'/: a_.Q._J ~ ·
hllps:/Jecos.f\~,s go~ pl!P.;ecies/9408
Long;lji!led (curlew Numeniusameritanus
~ ~ , i,d of Col"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) tllroughou t ii s, al"lge il"I the col"ltil"lel"ltal USA al"ld Alaska.
b.L.l2sPu% fan gevtemtmeriesl"S11
Marbled Godwit limos a r edoa
Th is is a Bird of Col"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) tllroughou t ii s, al"lge il"I Ille col"llil"lel"ltal lJSA al"ld Alaska.
hi lps:/Jecos.fws e;ov/ecpl!P.:ecies/9.1181
Nuttall's Woodpecker Pitoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of CoMervaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) ol"lly il"I particular Bi,d Col"lservaliol"I Regiol"I s (BCRs} il"I lhe col"l lil"lel"lt.ai lJ SA bJJosPerns fws tP1«em4DeciesJ9.1110
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Breeds Jan 15 to Jun 10
Breeds Jan 1 to Ae
V
~
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-12
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird ofCorise1valiol"I Col"lce,,.. (BCC) lhroughout its r;~l"lge il"I lh e col"ltil"lel"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska.

Rurcus Hummingbird selasphorus ruf us
This is a Bird ofCorise1valiol"I Col"lce,,.. (BCC) lhroughout its ,a,..ge il"I lh e col"ltil"lel"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska .
.bJJodlrEAS fws eoWeu?tv,ecieslROO?
Short-billed Dcwitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird ofCol"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) th,oughoul ils rar,ge il"I the col"llil"lel"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska.
hllo:rt/ues fws eoulerolsoeties/94 93
Seng Sparrow Melospi,a melodia
This is a Bird ofCol"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) ol"lly ir, pa1licular Bird C0Me1vatiol"I Regiol"I s (BCRs} ir, the col"l til"lel"lt.311.J SA Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae
This is a Bird ofC0Me1valiol"I Col"lce,,.. (BCC) Ol"lly ir, pa1licular Bird CoMervaliol"I Regiol"I s (BCRs} il"I lhe col"l til"lel"lt.311.J SA hllmrJJeces fws eov/eco/mecies/4 2AJ
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor r
This is a Bird of(ol"lse1vatiol"I Col"ICIHl"I (BCC) Lhroughout its rar,ge il"I the col"llil"lel"ltal lJSA al"ld)!aska~ . ~
.bJJo:rt/eces fws eowecn~ntilJ'iru~
Whimbrel N u'l!eniu, aeopus
Th is ir1'B~rd o~ Col"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) th,oughou l ils r ar,ge il"I th e~ l"l~ l"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska.
htimPerns fws emaerolsoetiesl941P
Willet T ringa semipalmata
This is a Bird ofCol"lservaliol"I Col"lcerl"I (BCC) th,oughoul ils rar,ge il"I the col"llil"lel"llal lJSA al"ld Alaska.

Wrentit Chamaea r ascia ta
This is a Bird of(ol"lse1vatiol"I Col"lce,,.. (BCC) lhroughout its rar,ge il"I the col"llil"lel"ltal lJSA al"ld Alaska.

Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Mar 1 5 to Jul 1 5
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds elsewhere
~ eijs Apr 1 5 to Jul 20
Breeds Mar 1 5 to Aug 1 0
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Mar 1 5 to Aug 1 O
The graphs below provide cur best understanding er when birds er concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This inrcrmaticn can be used to tailer and schedule your project activities to avoid er minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper '~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 9"8 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-13
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
In terpretalion and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report• before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particularweek of the year. (A year is re presented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 lhere were 20 survey events and the Spelled Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. ~ ~ 2. To prope~y present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative proba9.i!it~ of pret~c.0s calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probal:iilily o~ res~nce across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in Jfe~ N he Spotted Tcwhee i!: 0.05, ;)Od th;)l the probability cf pre!:ence i)t week 12 ~ .25) •i.thc:;1ll;:mimum cf Qnyweek of the yea~ The relative probability of presence on week 12 is \q'0.25~ 1~ al week 20 it is

0.0510.25 - 0.2. ,-. _) V

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in Lh_\PO}"io,!'s step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall betwe,.~nd 1 O; inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. r ~ \
Tc see a ba~s probability of presence sC:, sfinply hoveryour mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote ~ e'Y-;,,.. 'f'r;~}a1 'l,Slimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no ~ lfow bars sh own for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effori'(\
Vertical~ ines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys p~rformedJ_or that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

Tc see a ba~s survey effort range, simplyhoveryour mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data(-)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 1 O years are used in order to en sure delivery of currently relevan l information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. ■ probability of presel'I ce br eedil'lg seasol'I I survey eff orl - l'lo data "" '"' lu.G S£P OCT ~"" ore
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 10118 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-14
112212020

6.3kt tag~ I ~I I !i:1"·0CCV1111'C•40le ' •
(TnC. t, "O.lo Bi•O or
di":.C'¥01,3ft di"OC'"
(0CQ in ll'lbo•C:?, D"l
w,.s,,011uou.c11ib"
oceou:i.cor lnc £.§le
,lruo• ro, po11:111i.sl
:i.11:i.o:puo.!111,c:::i. I"
oltl no,c o,c..,:i, r •oin
oc,..,;, lypc:i.or
<k-r.:bpinenlo•
~
Bu" aN1ng 0,..,1
00:· OCR(TnC. C.o
BiaorColll.c•~ib"
<li11oe•11(1kfio11e , ..

P:? •iicub• Bi•O
G:, .. :.c,•oiion l':gio11:i.
(OC~li" Ille
®"ti11c11i.,ILJSAl
Ullforn~ Th,asoo, ·I
Ea: it.4.,geniOc(CO!-t)
(TnG C. o Bi•o or
Q,11:.e,voiio11 G::inoc,.,
(GeQ ill•O'§f'o:111UU
'0"b"';" .,.c
o:,11ii11c11r.,I IJSAo"O
~:i.14.l
Ctuk'S c,ebe
00: ll4"W iclc(CO!-t)
q11c. c. o Bi•o or
G:,11~•¥4\ioll G::1"0Clft
(0CQ ll'l•o:§f'oo"liu
1311jr II' IIIC
oa11Unc11i.,l !Ji.6.0"0
.'.b:i.i..s.l

I I ,, I
Common
Velbwthro.31
00:· 0CR(TnC. too
BiaorCo"l.c•~ii:I"
G:,110::•11(0C3:1011 ty in
p,,u: .. b, B,,~ G:,11:,:••oii-111 l'c •
( .
"
G:,11c,:111(0C3:)011 tyi11
f::? •U-:ub• Bi•O
G:,11:.e••oiio11 =sion:i.
(0C~li11 inc
03111,nc11r.,I LJSAl
ID+++ +1-1"1
<
·I·•·• I 1111 1~, H
IP..:: Ruot fOU
+1++ +t<I IJ I• I I ++ ID ·t{IJJJ [l}t++ ill+++ +-t{[ll '~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVL fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 11/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-15
112212020
Col~ntog~
li:i"·9CCVul"C•oOle
(TnC. t, "Ol 4 Bi•a or
<l, .. :,e,v-,1,3" & "«'"
(0CQ ift lflil.4•C:?, Dul
W,.S•l4,ftU4UCftibft
0CC4uleor lfle £.§le
,lruo• ro, po11: .. u.s1
lulo:puod111e:1, I"
oltl no,e o•C4l r •oin
oc,..,;, lypcior
<k-r.:bpinenlo•
~

1.ow,enc.e"S
Coldflnch
00: it.4.,~ icle(COhll
(Tnc.c.47:a ol
G:,ft:,C•'l'4iio" G:1"0C'"
(OCQ t.fl•O§flouliu
'4"§; i" Ille
0:, ft U"C" 111 i L&~ 411(l
H,,it.4.)
IP..:: Ruot fOU
IHNt..'S
Woodp..<><:ke, ++++ +111+11 +[I a ·I • • · • • , • 1 , , • + 00: l!.IJ"p icle(COl,1)
(TnC. c." Bi•a or G:,ft:,Cl'l'.Siioft G:,ft(Clft
(OCQ IJl•o'§flouliu
'4"i;'"l/le
®"1i"e11..,l 1£lr,.411(l
H,,~t.4.)
lOng-bdled c-...,1~"' ++++ ++++
oo: 'l.4"W""ia-c: ccoi.1
q nt,t,-,Bi,aor
++++
G:, .. ~•v.sli-3" G:, .. cc,.,
(OCQ lll•Oo()flouliu
'-'"§; i" Ille O:,ftUfteni., j IJSA411(l
Morbl~ Cod.vlt
\\'Oodl),9(ke,
00: • eot(TnC. ho
8iaorColl)e•wli3"
G:, .. oc,,.(oo:}o .. lyi"
114,ii,:.,b, Bi•a
ti":.C''l'41,3ft l',t:§j)"l
(9C~) i" ir,e
®"linen..,I USA)
SP£C[S
mm ID I)] 111111111
Oak"'""""' ++++ ............ H~ 00: 'l.4"se,vicle(COi.l (Tnt, t," Bi,a or
G:,ftll:1¥4\io" G:, .. o,:, ..
(BCQ ir,,o";iflouuu
'""SS i" inc
®"li"e""'' IJSA411(l
~
~
,. ~ • ++++ +++ill ........... + + ..........
-~ II IJI ID [(I] [:CCI 111111 Ill m-t{I]
'"' OCT ore
, , , - , 11 o •+••·~ ~ , .... ·H++ ......... ~ ++++ ++++ ++t{ll '~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 12/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-16
112212020
RI.Sfo.JS
Homm1ngblfd
00: ll.4";,cwiclc (CONl
q ne, e, 4 Bi,a or
Q,11~•-4~" Q,11e,,:,11
(9CQ lll•Oo()l'lo111.iu
'4"§; i11 lllc
o:,111111cn..,l 1.JSA4"0
N.,)t,.,.)
Sho1t-bdled
OOW!tch.!>1
00: ll.4"So/:'.iclc(C0111)
(TnC. C. 4 Bi•a or
Q,11~•-4~" Q,11e,,:,11
(9CQ lll•o'§l\o"l.iu
'4"§;•" IIIC
o:,111i11c111.lil l&'.4"0
N.,)t,.,.l
SongSpa,,ow
00:· aot(TnC, C,4
B;aorColll.c•wlio11
Q,11,:,:111(Ba:'1011tyi11
i,4,u,:.,1,, Bi•a
& 11~•Y4IIO" r.:gio11)
(0C~) i11 Ille
o:,111i11c"11tl I.&'.)
Spotwd T a.vhee
00:· l:lCR(TnC, C,4
B;aorColll.c•v,~"
G,110:,.,(0ClJo"tyi"
i,41UC11b• Bi,a
Q, .. :,,:,y4UQ" l'cgio")
(OCIS.J , .. inc
®"li"C"l.lli I.&'.)
Tncob,ed
Blackbird
00: lt.4"So/:'.iac(C0111)
(TnC. C. 4 Bi•a or
Q)Al,C1y41i311 Q)l'(CI"
(9CQ lll•o'§no"du
'4"§;•" IIIC
®"1i"C"l.llll.JSA4n(I
Ns)t,.,.l r \\1h1mt-,et ~ ,.lfj,.,.;:,e(COi.l
q na. e, 4 Bi•a or
Q, .. :.e,v4UO" Co"O:'"
(0CQ lll•o":if\:ludu ::!..: .. :i l&',4n(l
.''4)1,,S.)
Wdi£.t
00: ll.4"8-':'.:'.;:Jc(CONl
q ne, e, 4 Bi•a or
Q, .. :i,c,y4~ .. Q, .. e,,:, ..
(9CQ lll•Oo()l'lo111.iu
'4"§; i" Ille ®"ll"C"l:lj 1JS,',4n(l
Ns)t,.,.)
IP..:: Ruot fOU
[OJ+ +mm~ u 11
-- - ---- -0- - - ---- - --+- ---· ---+-- --
·--- ---- - - ---- - -m - - ---+-- -
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 13/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-17
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
\•,•,entlt ++++
00: lt..snp iClc(CO~l (TnC. C. 41 Bi•a or <l,11:,e,y,11,3n <l,nc,c,., l0CQ lll•o:51\3udu
'-'"3':i" Ille
oanli"c"r.,I ~4114
~
Tell me more .about tof\Serv.atiol\ me.asures I to.al\ implement to .avoid or mil\imize impatts to migr.atory birds.

Naliorowide Corose1valioro Measures describes measures lhal caro llelpavoid arod miroimiie impacls lo all birds al aroy localioro year 1ouro d. lmplemerolalioro of these measures is parlicula1ly im porlaro I whero bi, ds are m osl lik.ely lo occu, iro tile projecl area. Wi'l ero birds may be breedirog iro Ille a1ea, iderolifyirog the localioro s of aroy active roesls aro d avoidirog llleir deslruclioro is ave1y helpful impact miroimi.!alioro measure. To seewhero bi1dsare most lik.ely lo occur arod be br eedirog iro your projecl area, view the Probabilily of Presero ce Sum ma,y. Add i\iocal re raw res aro d/o r ~ maybe advisable cl eperod irog oro the lype of activity you are co rod uclirog a rod the lype of irofraslruclure or bird species presero l oro your projecl site.

Whal does IP.aC use lo gener.ate the migratory birds potel\lially otturril\g in my spetified ~oc.atio'\? Tile M igralo1y Bird Resource Lisi is comprised of lJSFWS Birds of Conse,valion Co roce, ro (@&garo'\d other species lhal n,aywarrarol specialallerolioro iro your projecl localioro. ~ Tile m i,gralory bird list geroeraled for your projecl is derived from dala provi e \ by Ill P f,:,~g)•f!ed gg NehYAC k ~ TlleAKNdala is based oroagrowirogcolle:clioro of 1, , arod is queried arod fillered lo relurro a list of lllose birds reporled as occurriro~ ro~ kU id cel~s)which your projecl irolersecls, a rod lhal llJlle beero iderolilied as warraro ling spec~I allerolioro be:1:au~ ey are a BCC species iro Illa( a1ea, aro eagle {Eag~ r equ ire:m ero ls may apply), or a species tha~ a ~\ l?l'·lic'd,a r v ulro erabilily lo off sho,e aclivilies or develo pmerol. \ : J \
Agairo, ll'le Migralory Bi1d Resource lisl irocludCtiJ,,a sul:isel of birds thal may occu, iro your projeclarea. II is rool represerolalive of all bi1ds tllal may o(tu ( iro your project area. To gel a list of all bi1d s polerolially p1ese:rot iro your pr oje:cl area, please visil lh e AKN RhectflggµgJU.

What does IP.aC us·e lo ge'ife'rate the probability of preSel\te graphs for the migr.atory birds potentially otturril\g ii\ my spetified lo~tio1'?
ne pro~ f p,esente graphs associated with your"' (§ralory b;,d Hsl are based on dala prov;ded by the ~ KnP>~CdPP Ne!lv2rk le..liW, This data is derived from agrowirog colleclioro of ~u banding ard [jljJgc uiecre datasfl'!i .

Probability of preseroce data is corolirou ously beirog updated as roew a rod belier irof o,malioro be com es avail3ble. To learro mo1eaboul how lhe probability of p1ese:roce graphs are produced arod how lo irolerprel lhem,go lhe Probability of Preseroce Summary arod lhero click o ro li'le ·rell me abo ul lhese: g1aph s· lirok.

How do I know if .a bird is breed il\g, wintering, migra-til\8 or present year-rouf\d in my projed area? To see what parl of a particular bi1d ·s raroge your projecl a1ea falls wilhiro (i.e. bree:dirog, wirolefirog, migralirog or yea1- 1ou rod}, you may ,ef er lo the followirog ,esources: The Cornell lab pf OcrilhP Iggy All Abo ul Bild s Bioi fluid e or (if you are u rosuccessfu I iro localirog the bird of iroteresl the,e}, tile CPr cell lab pf Orril ho logy Neg liARirsd Birds g~ If a bird oro you, migratory bird species list has a b1eedirog seasoroassocaled with il iflhal bird does occur iro your project area, lllere may be roes ts presero I al so me poiro I wili'liro tile limefr am e specifled. If ·Breeds elsewhere· is irod icaled, I hero tile bird likely does root breed iro your project area.

What are the levels of tof\tern for migr.alory birds?
'~ 'llt00$.-,,;$90utpa~roltCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ H/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-18
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
Migr alo1y birds delivered tl'l,ougli IPaC fall irilo tl'le followirig d isliricl calegofies of coricerri:

1. ·sec Rarigewid e· birds a,e Birds pf Co C'i:CIYd!iP r CPCGCIC {BCC} tlial are of coricerri tliro ugli oul their rarige ariywli ere willii.-. ll'le USA (iridudirig Hawail llie Pacific lslarids, Pue, lo Rico, arid ll'le Vii giri Isla.-. ds);

2. ·sec - BcR· birds are BCCs ll'lat are of corice,.-. orily iri particular Bird Corise,valiori Regioris (BC Rs} iri 11'1 e co.-. lirierilal lJ SA; arid

3. "Nori-BCC - Vul.-.er able· birds a,e .-. ol BCC species iri your project a, ea, bu l appear ori your list eill'l er because of ll'le fa gig Ad requi1ernerils (for eagles) 01 (fo, .-. ori-eagles) pole.-. lial susceplibililies iri offshore areas frorn cerlairi lypes of developrn eril or adivilies (e.g. off shore eriergy developrn e.-. l 01 lorigliri e flsl'liri&).

Alll'lougli ii is irn porlari l lo lfy lo avoid arid rn iriirni.te irnpacts lo all bi, ds, eff or ls sl'lould be rnade, iri particular, lo avoid arid rn iriirni.1:e irnpacls Lo lhe birds ori this I isl, especially eagles a.-. d BCC species of rarige-.vide co.-. ce,.-.. For rn ore irifo 1rnaliori ori corise1valiori rneasu res you ca.-. irn plerneril lo l'lelp avoid arid rn iri irn i.t:e rn igrato,y bird irnpacls arid 1equi1ernerils for eagles, please see llie FAQs for ll'lese topics.

Del.ails .about birds that.are potef\li~lly .affected by offshore projects For additiorial details aboul tl'le rel3live o ccurreri ce a.-. d abu ridarice of botli iridivid ual bird species ari~ ,gro~\D ( ~ species williiri your project area off 11'1 e Allarilic Coast, please visit ll'le NPrlhea,\ Qcear Pala PP!lal. T~e Po rt:al \ lso offers data arid iriforrnaliori aboul otlier laxa besides birds llial rnaybe helpful lo you iri yo~ proj:~r~.../ Allerriately, you rnay dowriload llle bird rnodel 1esulls flies uridedyirig the porlal rnaps lh~ gli l~ NOAA NCr'.QS Jl'leereiil'• S!illilii'ill M•d •!ir • aod Prndirl iv• MaooiJll: g( Milrir• s;,g Pili ribuiiA'l,) \. f/8rte Ar ih• Ailarii< Qui er CArlic erlal Sh rlf orojecl web page.

Bird lrack.irig data ca.-. also provide add iliorial details abou l occurrerice a.-.d fiabilal u.se lhr ough oul lhe year, iriclu dirig n, ig1atiori. Mode ls relyirig ori survey data rnay riot iriclu de ll'lis irif~ rn~ o~ ad i:liliorial iri forrnaliori ori rnariri e bird tracldrig data, see tl'l e Pivice Bird Shi d1r .arid the ~ t [:)cl aleb ~Bi reel or Pam I Price.

Whal ;f I have eagles on my (;st? r '\....,,
If your project has ll'le polerilial lo di~ or kill eag;Jes, you rna, rieed lo oblair a ocrrnil lo avoid violalirig ll'le Eagle Act sliould such irnpacts occur. '--,.I
Proper hHerpret.atio.-.~ se ofY.our Migratory Bird Report Tl'le rn igralorytiird I isl geri~eraled is riol a lisl of all birds iri your project area, orily a subset of birds of priority coricerri.

To learr, F":fbou! liowyour list isgerieraled,arid see oplioris for iderilifyirigwhat other birds rnay be ir, you, projec\ area, ~ ase see the FAQ 'Wl'lal does IPaC use lo gerierale the migratory birds polerilially occur,irig iri rny sp,e[iQeH lo taliori". Please be aware ll'lis 1epo1t provides ll'le "probability of p1eserice" of birds will'li.-. the 10 k.rn grid cel!~ l'1al overlap your project; riol your ex.act projecl footpriril. Ori tlie graplis provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (iridicaled by the black. vertical bar )arid for the ex.islerice of the "rio data" iri dicalo, (a red Ii ori.t:ori tal ba1). A liigh survey eff 011 is Iii e key cornpor, eri l. If the s1.1 rvey eff orl is l'ligl'l, tl'leri the probability of p1eser, ce score can be viewed as rnore deperidable. lri corilrasl, a low survey effort bar or.-. o data bar rnearis a lack. of data arid, llierefo,e, a lack of cerlairily about preserice of llie species. Tliis list is riol perf eel; ii is sirnply a starlirig poiril for iderilifyirig what birds of co.-. cerri !'lave the pole.-. tial lo be iri your pr ojecl area, wlieri lliey rn iglit be tl'l ere, arid if they rniglil be breedirig(whicl'l rnearis riesls rnigl'll be preserit). The lisl helps you kriowwl'lal lo look for lo corifllrn preserice,arid helps guide you iri kriowirigwl'leri lo irnplerneril co.-.servaliori rneasu,es lo avoid or rniriirni.t:e polerilial irnpacls frorn your projectaclivities, should preserice be coriflrrned. To lea,.-. rnoreaboul corise1valiori rneasures, visit llie FAQ "Tell rneaboul corise,valiori rneasu,es I ca.-. irnplerneril to avoid or rniriirniie irnpacts lo rnigralo1y birds" al tl'le bollorn of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
'~ 'llt00$.-,,;$90utpa~roltCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 15/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-19
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refug~ system mu stun dergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REfUGE l,6.NOSAT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCA.TION.

VVetlands in the National Wetlands lnv.e~ 9Fy
Impacts to NW! ,.,enands and other aquatic habitats may be subje~ 'to regu'9tion under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. C JV For more information please contact the Regulatory Progra~ the local lJ ~ Armx Cprps p( Engjne•cs District. N
Please note th at the NWI data being sh~ 1i'i'may i}o~ of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recomme~ you v'~hese results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaP.S theo,-ing wetlands:

The a~ project is too large for IPaC to load all NW! wetlands in the area. The list below may ~e inci mplete. Please contact the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office or visit the llC6(I \~o~ Jull list.

FRESHWATER EMERGE NT \NE Tl,6.J\1O
WllJ.C
PEMJAb
Will.A.

PEMJKx
PEMJCx
.Pf.Mlf.

PEM1 Fx
PEM1 Fh
PEM1Ax
PEM1Ch
PEM1Cd
PEM1B
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 16/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-20
712212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
fRE= TE R fORESTEO/SHRUBWETLANO
£.EQ.e.
£SSA
£SSC
£.EQ.eJl
£EQ.Cb.

ES.Su
£SSQJ.
es.s&
fRESHWATE R PONO
£l.!f!l:lll.
£!.!fl.El\
£l.!1llill
£1.!f!E
£l.!1lli
£1.W.1:lb.

PUBH
PUSCx
PUSCh
PUSA
PUSAh
PUBFh
eAB.E
£.6f,fll.
el.!.SKt\
eu.sc
el.!Sill.
~
eAWE.
~ l,E
b21J6Eh
12l/BKx
I JlJBHx
I 21JRfx

1.2.lJ.BE
12l/SKx
12l/SCh
12l/SAh
12l/BHx

RIVERINE
R4SBCx
R4SBC
R2USC
R2USA
l~ :HtCO.J.iJ$f!OU ip.t~fO!tCUo. PI mOl Xl6VfTlPXI XVLfH3PS2Ulre .JOH~$ 11118 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-21
112212020 IP..:: Ruot fOU
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the Na!jpna1 WeUands lm,rentpc, website Oat.a limit.aliol)S
The Se1vice·s objeclive of fT'lapping w-ellands and deeP"1,vale1 tlabilals is lo produce rec on naissan ce level in for fT'lalion on ll'le localion, lypeand sile oftl'lese resources. Tl'le fT'laps a1e prepared frofT'l lheanalysis of tiigtl altitude ifT'lagery.

Wetlands are idenlilied based on vegelalion, visible tlyd rology and geog1aptly. A fT'lar gin of e1101 is in t.e1en I in ll'le use of ifT'lage,y; ll'lus, de!ailed on-ll'le-groun d inspection of any particular sile fT'lay 1esult in I evision of !he wel'3nd bounda1ies or classification eslablistled tti,ougl'l ifT'lage analysis.

Ttle accuracy of ifT'lage inle1p1elalion depends on ll'le qualily of ll'le ifT'lagery, ttle expe1ien ce of ll'le ifT'lage analysts, ll'le afT'lou nl and qualily of ll'le collateral data and lt.e afT'I ounl of g1ou nd 11 ull'l ve1ilicalion wo, k con dueled. Met.a data stlou Id be consulted lo dete,.,, in e ttl e dale of ll'le source ifT'lage,y used and any fT'lapping p1 oblefT'I s.

Wei lands or oll'le1 fT'lapped fealu1es fT'layl'lave ctianged since ll'le dale ofttle ifT'la.ge1y 01 field work. Tl'lere fT'laybe occasional di«e,en ces in po tygon boun da1 ies or classilic.alion s between 11'1 e infotfT'lalion depicted on ll'le fT'lap arod ll'le actual condilions on sile.

Ce1lain welland tlabilals are eitclud ed f rofT'I lt.e Nalional fT'lapping progr ani because of ll'le li"fT'lilalion\.of'aer ial ifT'lage,y as ll'le prif1"1a1y dala source used lo d elect welland s. These tlabitals include seagras.ses o~subfT'I e,ged aqualic 11t:""t:lc1liu1• the1l e11 t: fuu1•d i1• th t: j.,lt:1 tiJol e11•d )ubtide1I .:u 1•t:) uf t:)lue11 it:) e11•d l't:e11 )h u, t: 1.LJd)~ I we1lt:1 ). Su11•t:
deepwale1 1eef cofT'I fT'lun ilies {coral o I lube11icid wu ,.,, reefs) have also bee-xxdu ded fJ_om ttle inventory. Tl'lese habilals, because of ll'lei, depth, go und elected by aerial ifT'la.ge,y. JV Oat.a prec..autiol\S
Federal stale, and local regulalo,y agencies w~ j~r~ iclia,t oy e1 wellands fT'lay d eline and describe wetlands in a diffe,enl fT'lanner ll'laro ll'lal used in ltiis invenlory. Ttle~ s l"0 allefT'lpl, in eill'ler ll'le design 01 products ofll'lis invenlo1y, lo d elin e ll'le lifT'I ils of pr~ ela,y ju risdiclion of any Federal, slate, or local gove, nfT'lenl or lo eslablisl'l ttle geograptlical scope of ll'le r egulalo1v. P.tD,crafT'ls,,~~ve, nfT'lenl agerocies. Persons intending lo engage in aclivilies involving fT'IOdilicalions wilt.in or adja~ld'welland a,eas sl'lould seek the advice of appropriale federal slate, or local a.gen cies concerning SP.ecilied agency regu lato,y progr an, sand prop1iela1y jurisdictions ll'lal fT'lay aff ecl suet. aclivilies.
'~ 'llt00$.~$f!0U!p.t~fO!tCUo.PlmOl20fNfTlPXIXVl fH3PS2Ulresot ~$ 18/18 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-22
In Reply Ref er To:

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Rooro W-2605
Sacraro ento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600Fa<: (916) 414-6713
Consultation Code: 0BESMF00-2020-SLl-2419
Event Code: 0BESMF00-2020-E-07460
Project Name: 180239.02
July 22, 2020
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Wbom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fisb and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as am ended (16 U .S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the Nati on al Marine Fi sh eri es Service:
http:/ /w ww .n wr.n oaa.gov /protect ed_speci es/species _l is ti species _l i sts.htm 1 New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed form ally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and im plecn entation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-23
07/22/2020 Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460 2
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(l ) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http :// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdissues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdissues/Hazards/towers/ com tow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-24
07/22/2020 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2020-E-07460 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-25
07/22/2020 Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
1 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-26
07/22/2020 Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460
Project summary
Consultation Code: 0SESMF00-2020-SLI-2419
Event Code:

Project Name:

Project Type:
0SESMF00-2020-E-07 460
180239.02

DEVELOPMENT
Project Description: Residential housing devleopment with small road bridge construction over canal.

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/36. 687 49995797155Nll9.68750015652256W l.l<1fr.r,1
le-nho1t1
l,i101Atf
IJj
L,
I nnrl't
Counties: Fresno, CA I Madera, CA I Tulare, CA
2 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-27
07/22/2020 Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 19 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example. certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl , as U SFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries. also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals
NAME
Fisher Pekania pennanti
Population: SSN DPS
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpispecies/3651
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Species survey guidelines:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/37/office/11420.pdf San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Birds
NAME
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
STATUS
Threatened
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-28
07/22/2020
Reptiles
NAME
Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpispecies/625
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Amphibians
NAME
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Species survey guidelines:
https ://ecos.fws. go v/ipac/guideline/survey/population/205/office/11420 .pdf California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Fishes
NAME
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https:/lecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Crustaceans
NAME
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.govlecplspecies/8246
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https:llecos.fws.govlecplspecies/498
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecplspecies/2246
STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
4 Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page A-29
07/22/2020
Flowering Plants
NAME
Event Code: 0SESMF00-2020-E-07460
Fleshy Owl's-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpispecies/8095
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Hairy Orcutt Grass Orcuttia pilosa
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2262
Hartweg's Golden Sunburst Pseudobahia bahiifolia
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.govlecplspecies/1704
Keck's Checker-mallow Sidalcea keckii
There is final critical habitat fo r this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5704
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecplspecies/2931
San Joaquin Orcutt Grass Orcuttia inaequalis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.govlecplspecies/5506
Critical habitats
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
There is 1 critical habitat wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction.

NAME
Fleshy Owl's-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta https :/ /ecos. f ws. gov/ ecplspecies/8095#crithab
STATUS
Final
5 APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

AUTUMN RIDGE PROJECT, FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-1
Photograph 1: Aerial view of Project site taken from northwest corner or site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7227211, -119.7286453 facing southeast.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Photograph 2: Aerial view of Project site taken from southwest corner or site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7173386, -119.7283859, facing northeast.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-2
Photograph 3: Aerial view of Project site taken from southeast corner or site GPS Coordinates: 36.7192688, -119.7289963, facing northwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Photograph 4: Aerial view of Project site taken from northeast corner or site GPS Coordinates: 36.7229614, -119.7219009, facing southwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-3
Photograph 5: Aerial view of northern half of Project.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7211876, -119.7290192, facing east.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Photograph 6: Aerial view of southern half of Project.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7187729, -119.7289658, facing east
Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020.

Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-4
Photograph 7: Aerial view of site entrance from Willow Avenue. Dumped trash and homeless camp also pictured.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7209091, -119.7258911, facing west.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 8: Aerial view of northeastern corner of site with railroad and offsite area pictured.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7220039, -119.7250214, facing north.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-5
Photograph 9: Aerial view of northern half of site with ag trees, looking south towards dry basin on left, retention pond on right.

GPS Coordinates: 36.721508, -119.724968, facing southeast.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 10: Aerial view of dry basin on east side of site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7205009, -119.7215576, facing southwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-6
Photograph 11 Aerial view of inundated retention pond on southern side of site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7191658, -119.7229156, facing southwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 12: View of red-tailed hawk perched in tree on southern half of site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7190399, -119.7230301, facing west.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-7
Photograph 13: View of burnt area of site showing high volume of small mammal burrow entrances.

GPS Coordinates: 36.743280, -119.677695, facing north.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 14: View of unburnt area in northwest corner of site. Active mammal burrow complex pictured.

GPS Coordinates: 36.743714, -119.677796, facing east.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-8
Photograph 15: View of active small mammal burrow complex beneath pistachio tree.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7208824, -119.7269897, facing north.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 16: View of dry basin on west side of site, taken from within basin.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7198486, -119.7226486, facing northwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-9
Photograph 17: Large mammal den entrance found within dry basin. Possibly manmade.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7201042, -119.7230606, facing northeast.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 18: View of small mammal burrow entrances found within dry basin.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7201042, -119.7224808, facing southwest.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Autumn Ridge Project August 2020
DR Horton – Central Valley Division Page B-10
Photograph 17: View burned lands off-site in BSA, looking west from southeastern corner of site border of site taken from southwest corner of site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7184601, -119.7230225, facing east.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020
Photograph 18: View of northern border of site taken from northwest corner of site.

GPS Coordinates: 36.7217712, -119.7273788, facing east.

Photograph taken by Dylan Ayers on August 13, 2020

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 23, 2020
Project: Cultural resources records search for the Autumn Ridge Project, City of Fresno, Fresno CA
To: Jaymie Brauer
From: Robert Parr, MS, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results (RS #20-269) Background
This Technical Memo is to provide a cultural record search and to determine whether the proposed project would impact cultural resources.

Project Description
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) would allow the applicant, D.R. Horton, the ability to construct a single-family residential subdivision. The proposed TSM intends to create residential lots and the appurtenant infrastructure consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential and proposed Zoning designation of RS-5 (Residential SingleFamily, Medium Density), respectively. In addition, there is an approximate five-acre portion of the project site that has a dual-designation as Open Space – Park and Medium Density Residential land uses by the City’s General Plan. As mentioned in the City’s General Plan, all new parks, open space, and public facilities (such as school sites) carry dual land use designations, so that if that facility is not needed, private and public development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. Future development of single-family homes will be consistent with these designations and would be evaluated by the City through the subsequent building permit submittal. In addition, the project will require an annexation into the City of Fresno and a Prezone to RS-5.

Project Location
The proposed Project is located on the northern edge of the City of Visalia, Tulare County California, on Pratt Road and Riverway Drive (Figures 1 and 2). It is within the Visalia California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, and within portions of Sections 13 and 18, T.18S, R.24E and R.25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The St. Johns River runs along the northern property boundary. There is residential development to the south and undeveloped agricultural lands to the east and west of the site. 01r

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Results
A cultural resources records search (RS #20-211) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield for the Pratt Family Ranch Residential Development Project. A Sacred Lands File Search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission. On May 26, 2020, the NAHC response letter indicated negative results.

This letter is included with this memo.

The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that the subject property had never been surveyed for cultural resources. No cultural resources have been recorded on the property and it is not known if any exist there. One cultural resource survey has been conducted within a half mile of the project (Nuss and Beazley 2016). No resources have been recorded within a half mile radius of the project.

Visalia General Plan certified EIR, Section 3.12 Cultural Resources, notes several recognized historical resources in the City (City of Visalia, 2014). However, these sites are not in close proximity to the Project.

Conclusions
Based on the results of cultural records search findings and the lack of historical or archaeological resources previously identified within a half mile radius of the proposed Project, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would be conducted within the partially developed and previously disturbed parcel.

The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits is would be considered unlikely.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, the following measures are recommended to be included on the final site plans and all construction 01r

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
plans and specs. With implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than CUL
significant impact.
-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materia activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist ls may include
prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse and evaluation or
impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the CUL
significance of a historical resource.
-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further the Native American H
and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health eritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of Robert E. Parr,
human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

MS, RPA
(Note: Alpha
References
Senior Archaeologist
-numeric designation in parentheses following the citation refer to IC report reference number.)
Nuss, Andrew and Matthew Beazley ~ ~

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
2016 Archaeological Assessment TCNS ID #140292, American Towers, LLC, Visalia, Tulare County, California. (TU-01778)
Attachment A- Figures
Attachment B- Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Response 200180
01r
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com Date: February 11, 2022 Project No.: 200272
To: Israel Trejo, Senior Planner, City of Fresno
From: Ernie Escobedo, Clovis Branch Manager, QK
Subject: Fiscal Analysis – Autumn Ridge
cc: Chris Lang, Planner, City of Fresno
Ethan Davis, Associate Planner, QK
Trevor Stearns, Associate Planner, QK
Introduction
The City of Fresno, in 2019, conducted an evaluation of its Tax Sharing Agreement (Agreement) with the County of Fresno. Its purpose was to determine if the revenues collected under that agreement were sufficient in providing adequate levels of service to annexed territory without negatively impacting the General Fund. The evaluation was completed by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) in October 2019 and presented to the City Council in June 2020. The report stated that the Agreement did not allow the City of Fresno to collect appropriate funds to support newly annexed projects. As a result, the City allowed the Agreement to expire.

The City of Fresno is now requiring Developers with proposed projects to conduct a fiscal analysis to determine whether the costs of delivering services are sufficiently funded by the taxes collected from the project. This memorandum will explain the fiscal impact of the proposed Autumn Ridge Project on the City of Fresno’s General Fund.

The Project consists of a Vesting Tentative Map (Tract No. 6345) dividing a 38.72-acre parcel into 199 single family residential lots. The project is located on the east side of Willow Avenue, approximately 600 feet northeast of the intersection of Willow and Church Avenues.

The site is directly adjacent to an existing single-family residential subdivision to the south, unincorporated vacant properties to the west, unincorporated agricultural property to the north and undeveloped vacant land to the east and west. The Project is within a County Island consisting of three other parcels, totaling approximately 119 acres. Public infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and storm drain facilities are within close proximity to the Project site. The construction of the new main lines that will be required of the Project, will also allow for the other parcels to easily connect once development occurs. air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com Cost Methodology
Summary of City Services
This fiscal analysis relies on the financial information and methodology utilized in the EPS report analysis. The list of City services evaluated in the EPS report can be seen in Table 1:

List of City Services. The annual cost for those services, including total costs and costs net of dedicated, non-operating revenues, is outlined in Table 2: City General Fund Costs.

The EPS report also references additional costs to the City beyond these services, including existing debt service for the Convention Center and associated parking, Chukchansi Park Stadium, and deferred infrastructure costs for annexed land needing improvement.

Deferred infrastructure costs are calculated on a per project basis, as different project areas have varying infrastructure needs. Some projects located farther from City limits may require larger up-front or ongoing maintenance costs due to the likelihood they contain existing development. For projects closer to the existing city limits or surrounded by the City, there may be limited or no deferred infrastructure costs in excess of those already accounted for in the City budget. This project specifically, is surrounded the City limits as is assumed for County Islands. The Project site is adjacent to the existing City limits and will produce little to no deferred infrastructure costs. For this reason, debt service has been included in this analysis while deferred infrastructure costs have been omitted.

Table 1: List of City Services by Department
Administration
City Council
Office of the Mayor
City Clerk
Finance
Personnel Services
Information Services
Public Safety
Police
Fire
Public Works
Public Works
Transportation (FAX)
Other Services
General City Purpose
Development and Resource Management (DARM)
air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com Convention Center Debt Service
Parks and Recreation
Source: Click here to enter text. (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. , 2019) Table 2: City General Fund Costs by Department
Item Total Net % of Net Total
City Council $4,637,100 $4,637,100 100%
Office of the Mayor $4,133,600 $4,133,600 100%
City Clerk $910,200 $910,200 100%
Finance $7,388,500 $5,913,100 80%
Personnel Services $35,989,600 $3,215,700 9%
Information Services $356,400 $356,400 100%
Police $180,875,300 $154,314,000 85%
Fire $69,266,300 $54,428,000 79%
Public Works $9,092,700 $5,833,500 64%
Parks and Recreation $29.529.500 $14,927,500 51%
Transportation (FAX) $9,394,200 $9.097.200 97%
City Attorney $6,380,900 $6,230,900 98%
General City Purpose $46,088,900 $0 0%
DARM $51,617,300 $7,891,00 15%
TOTAL $455,660,500 $271,888,200 60%
Source: Click here to enter text. (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. , 2019) Analyzing Per Capita Costs
To determine per capita costs, total net costs are divided by the City’s total population. There are two populations which can be used for determining per capita costs. The EPS report identifies a resident city population of 542,012 and a city service population of 630,422. The per capita costs for the General Fund plus debt service for the resident city population is shown in Table 3: City Costs Per Capita.

While service population was considered, it is not applicable to this Project because it is a residential development. Therefore, resident per capita costs will be used to calculate the Project’s fiscal impact within this analysis.

air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com

Table 3: City Costs Per Capita
Item Net Per Capita Cost
(Resident Population)
City Council $4,637,100 $8.72
Office of the Mayor $4,133,600 $7.78
City Clerk $910,200 $1.71
Finance $5,913,100 $11.12
Personnel Services $3,215,700 $6.05
Information Services $356,400 $0.67
Police $154,314,000 $290.29
Fire $54,428,000 $102.39
Public Works $5,833,500 $10.97
Parks and Recreation $14,927,500 $28.08
Transportation (FAX) $9,097,200 $17.11
City Attorney $6,230,900 $11.72
General City Purpose $0 $0.00
DARM $7,891,00 $14.84
SUB TOTAL $271,888,200 $511.47
Add: Debt Service Per Capita (resident population) $15.72 ADJUSTED ANNUAL GENERAL FUND COSTS PER CAPITA $527.19
Source: (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. , 2019)
Project Revenue Analysis
Costs per Unit
To convert the per capita costs to per housing unit costs, the cost per capita has been multiplied by the average estimated persons per household of 3.07. Average persons per household was determined by dividing the total occupied housing units by the current population, as estimated by the US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS). The Autumn Ridge Project is planned for 199 units. Calculations for both persons per household and costs per unit can be seen in Table 4: Average Annual Costs per Unit.

air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com

Table 4: Average Annual Costs per Unit
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Current
Estimated
Population
Average Persons Per
Household
Costs Per Capita Costs Per Unit
172,8151 542,0122 3.07 $527.19 $1,618.48 1 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Table DP04. 2 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, Table DP05.

Revenue Per Unit
For the purposes of this analysis, three revenue sources have been evaluated:
• Revenue from property taxes
• Revenue from sales taxes
• Revenue from other sources, including room taxes, real estate transfer taxes, franchise fees, and license and permit fees
Total estimated annual revenues originating from all three of these sources are shown in Table 8: Total Annual Estimated Revenue.

To determine the Project’s contribution to revenues collected from property tax, a property value analysis was conducted using the assessed values of homes from a new subdivision that is within 3 miles of the subject project. This new subdivision is actively selling homes and consists of similar product type and lot sizes. Based on current selling prices from this nearby subdivision, the estimated average selling price of Autumn Ridge is determined to be $445,3151.

Under State law, property taxes are limited to one percent of the assessed value per Proposition 13. Of that one percent, the City and County were allocated approximately 44.63 percent2. Under the now expired tax sharing agreement between the City and County of Fresno, the City was allocated 38% of the remaining revenue. Using these percentages, the projected property tax revenue to the City of Fresno would be approximately $635.90 per 1 Reflects a point in time capture of average assessed value. The ultimate value of future housing units will vary with market fluctuation. Estimated property values will be reassessed prior to the formation of the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD).
2 According to Fresno County Tax Collector’s Schedule of Levies for 2018/2019 for Tax Rate Area 005-367 directly east of the Project.
air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com unit. These calculations may be reviewed in Table 5: Annual Estimated Property Tax Revenue Per Unit.

Sales taxes generated by the proposed project have also been included for consideration in this analysis. Sales tax per capita was calculated using the ratio of sales tax revenue identified in the City’s Adopted Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Budget to the total population estimated by the California Department of Finance for the same year. This calculation can be seen in Table 6: Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue per Unit.

Other revenue sources were also considered as part of this fiscal analysis. According to the Fresno Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2020/2021, revenues collected from residents also include room tax, real estate transfer tax, franchise fees, and license and permit fees. These other revenue sources are expected to be generated by the Project at some level annually.

As shown in Table 7: Estimated Annual Revenue from Other Sources, revenue per capita received from these additional sources totals approximately $333.13 per unit.

Table 5: Annual Estimated Property Tax Revenue Per Unit Average Sales
Price per
Home
Property
Tax Rate
Annual
Property
Tax
Collected
City/County
Portion of
Revenue
City/County
Annual
Shared
Revenue
City of
Fresno
MOU Split
w/ County
City of
Fresno
Annual
Revenue
$445,315 1.0% $4,453 44.63% $1,987.44 38% $755.23

Table 6: Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue per Unit
Total Sales Tax
Revenue
Estimated
Population
Sales Tax
Revenue per
Capita
Persons Per
Household
Annual Sales Tax
Revenue per Unit
$102,501,000 1 542,012 2 $189 3.07 $580.57 1 City of Fresno 2019/2020 Adopted Budget 2 California Department of Finance

Table 7: Estimated Annual Revenue from Other Sources
Total Sales Tax
Revenue
Estimated
Population
Sales Tax
Revenue per
Capita
Persons Per
Household
Annual Sales Tax
Revenue per Unit
$ 58,814,800 1 542,012 2 $108.51 3.07 $333.13
air
MEMO
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 ⬥ Clovis, California 93612 ⬥ Tel (559) 449-2400 ⬥ Fax (559) 733-7821 ⬥www.qkinc.com 1 Other revenue sources include Room Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Franchise Fees, and License and Permit Fees.

Dollar amount has been sources from the City of Fresno 2019/2020 Adopted Budget. 2 California Department of Finance

Table 8: Total Annual Estimated Revenue
Revenue Source Estimated Revenue per Unit
Property Taxes $755.23
Sales Tax $580.57
Other $333.13
Total Annual Estimated Revenue per Unit $1,668.93
Conclusion
When accounting for the costs of City services in comparison to revenues generated from property tax, sales tax, and other revenues, it is anticipated that the Autumn Ridge Project would have an overall net surplus to the General Fund of $50.46 per unit per year, as shown in Table 9: Estimated Annual Surplus, which will not include a deferred maintenance cost, due to the location of the Project site in relation to the existing City limits. When extrapolated to include all 199 homes in the community the Autumn Ridge project will contribute $10,041 to the General Fund annually. These calculations assume a 38% allocation of property taxes to the City of Fresno and an average assessed value of $445,315. This fiscal analysis should be revised in the event that a different allocation of property taxes be negotiated prior to annexation.

In light of the estimated surplus, the applicant proposes the project be annexed into the City without the creation of a new community facilities district (CFD).

Table 9: Estimated Annual Surplus
Item Estimated Revenue/Costs per Unit
Annual Estimated Revenue per Unit $1,668.931
Annual Estimated Costs per Unit $1,618.48
Total Annual Surplus per Unit $50.46
1 Assumes a 38% property tax allocation to the City of Fresno. air
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development
Fresno, California
BAC Job # 2021-154
Prepared For:

Quad Knopf, Inc.

Prepared By:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Dario Gotchet, Senior Consultant
December 3, 2021
Attn: Ernie Escobedo
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301
Clovis, CA 93612
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. ● P.O. Box 7968, Auburn, CA 95604 ● Phone: (530) 537-2328 ● bacnoise.com

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

CEQA Checklist
NOISE AND VIBRATION –
Would the Project Result in:

NA – Not
Applicable
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Introduction
The proposed Autumn Ridge Residential Development (project) is located east of S. Willow Avenue and south of an existing San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) track in Fresno, California.

The project proposes the construction of approximately 201 single-family residential lots and a neighborhood park. Existing land uses in the immediate project vicinity include residential and agricultural to the north, residential to the south, agricultural to the west, and undeveloped land to the east. The project site location and site plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

The purposes of this assessment are to quantify the existing noise and vibration environments, identify potential noise and vibration impacts resulting from the project, identify appropriate mitigation measures, and provide quantitative and qualitative analyses of impacts associated with the project. Specifically, impacts are identified if project-related activities would cause a substantial increase in ambient noise or vibration levels at existing sensitive uses in the project vicinity, or if traffic, railroad, or project-generated noise or vibration levels would exceed applicable federal, state, or City of Fresno noise or vibration standards at existing or proposed sensitive uses.

Noise and Vibration Fundamentals
Noise
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are designated as sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz). Definitions of acoustical terminology are provided in Appendix A.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB. Another useful aspect of the decibel scale is that changes in decibel levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Noise levels associated with common noise sources are provided in Figure 3.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by filtering the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighting network. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels.

Legend
0 300 Figure 1
Scale (Feet)
Project Area Boundary (Approximate)
Autumn Ridge
Fresno, California
Project Area
150
Existing SJVR Track
S Willow Ave
N-1
N-2
V-1
Noise Measurement Locations (Long-Term)
Vibration Measurement Location (Long-Term)
0 0
N
A

BOLL ARD
Acoustical Consultants
Legend
0 200 Figure 2
Scale (Feet)
Existing SJVR Track
Autumn Ridge
Fresno, California
Site Plan
100
Proposed 6’ Block Walls (Traffic Noise Barriers) S Willow Ave Proposed 8’ Block Wall (Railroad Noise Barrier)
Park
3 Recommended STC-32 Windows – Upper-Floors Only (Impact 9 Recommendation) -
-
::j
I f
: 1ij I
I I '111 : 11 I
11 •
b
I
I
'.)I I
111
~~ I
~: : I
11,
11 11
.!C' f't,."JOO[\/E.\i l [ro/£ ru.D,t:J,Tt.!1
~ --~ - ~ --- ---- I .ITC>.:.I R_2'.AVli1'1: i - - ~
I 188 187 100 185 I
176 175
~I 177 174 pl
>----+----1;;; 1
178 173 I
179 172
--
99 86 143 130
I
.---oo-+-_81 _ _J_
1 9 7 881 I~
~ I
1-----+----l§I 85 90 I~ .----+-----;,
94 _ 31.---1-
.-1-- - -t,-,,=~ + -+-+-,--.a..;-=--=----1
- t
00 89
f--'-•_2_ +-_ ,3_, _ _, ~,
141 132 I g t---+-----t"'I
140 133
139 134
127
f.26 119
L - ---:;;,/'(R';i9' ., I . ,f,P I
1:15 ~ 120 I
1- i-63-M
-----~ -: --
I
61 24 49 :;o 60
26 48 51
27 47 52 ,ii .. ,__ 58
28 ,j 46 53 .,_
~
29 1" 45 54 I;,:
/;(
55 56
.J:!§1" f.WRP,NCE A VF.NUB
40 TI.OT H l 8
35 36 37 38 39
-- I \• I
I
N
A
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Figure 3
Noise Levels Associated with Common Noise Sources
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq).

The Leq is the foundation of the day-night average noise descriptor (DNL or Ldn) and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
ii
I
"'
Decibel Scale (dBA)*
12-Gauge Shotgun 160
Chainsaw 110
Motorcycle 100
Lawn Mower 90
Vacuum Cleaner 80
Conversaliu11 65
Floor Fan 50 I
Rustling Leaves 30
Pin Falling 15
►
►
►
►
►
►
◄ Jet Takeoff 140
Tractor/Hand Drill 97
◄ City Traffic 78
◄ • Air Condil1omng Uml 60
◄ Ele(:trical Transformer 45
•Sources:
www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noise/noisemeter.html
http://e-a-r.com/hearingconservation/faq_main.cfm
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

The DNL is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because DNL represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. DNL-based noise standards are commonly used to assess noise impacts associated with traffic, railroad, and aircraft noise sources.

Vibration
According to the Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines (FTA-VA-90-06), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.

Train wheels rolling on rails create vibration energy that is transmitted through the track support system into the ground, creating vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building structure. The maximum vibration amplitudes of the floors and walls of a building often will be at the resonance frequencies of various components of the building.

Vibration can be described in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities (IPS, PPV inches/second) or RMS velocity in terms of VdB.

Human response to vibration is difficult to quantify. Vibration can be felt or heard well below the levels that produce any damage to structures. The duration of the event has an effect on human response, as does frequency. Generally, as the duration and vibration frequency increase, the potential for adverse human response increases.

According to the Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, April 2020), operation of construction equipment and construction techniques generate ground vibration. Traffic traveling on roadways can also be a source of such vibration. At high enough amplitudes, ground vibration has the potential to damage structures and/or cause cosmetic damage. Ground vibration can also be a source of annoyance to individuals who live or work close to vibration-generating activities. However, traffic, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Regulatory Setting: Criteria for Acceptable Noise and Vibration Exposure
Federal
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
The City of Fresno does not currently have adopted standards for groundborne vibration. As a result, vibration impact criteria established by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria were applied to the assessment of railroad operations at the project site. The FTA vibration impact criteria are based on maximum overall levels for a single event, such as train passbys. These vibration impact criteria, identified in Table 6-3 of the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), have been reproduced in Table 1 of this report.

Table 1
FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)
Frequent
Events1
Occasional
Events2
Infrequent
Events3
Category 1 – Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations 654
654 654
Category 2 – Residences and buildings
where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3 – Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime use 75 78 83
1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. For equipment that is more sensitive, a detailed vibration analysis must be performed.

Source: 2018 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 6-3 State of California
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The State of California has established regulatory criteria that are applicable to this assessment.

Specifically, Appendix G of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. According to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, the project would result in a significant noise or vibration impact if the following occur:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

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 other applicable standards of other agencies? B. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
It should be noted that audibility is not a test of significance according to CEQA. If this were the case, any project which added any audible amount of noise to the environment would be considered significant according to CEQA. Because every physical process creates noise, the use of audibility alone as significance criteria would be unworkable. CEQA requires a substantial increase in noise levels before noise impacts are identified, not simply an audible change.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
As mentioned previously, the City of Fresno does not currently have adopted standards for groundborne vibration. As a result, the vibration impact criteria developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was applied to the assessment of project construction activities. The Caltrans guidance criteria for building structure and vibration annoyance are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 2
Caltrans Guidance for Building Structure Vibration Criteria Structure and Condition Limiting PPV (in/sec)
Historic and some old buildings 0.5
Residential structures 0.5
New residential structures 1.0
Industrial buildings 2.0
Bridges 2.0
Source: 2020 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 14.

Table 3
Caltrans Guidance for Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Severe/very disturbing 2.0 0.4 to 3.6
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.1
Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035
Barely/slightly perceptible 0.035 0.012
Note: Source: 2020 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Tables 4 & 6.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Local
Fresno General Plan
The Noise and Safety Element (Chapter 9) of the Fresno General Plan contains the City’s noiserelated policies. The specific policies which are generally applicable to this project are reproduced below:

NS-1-a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dB DN/CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise-sensitive uses for noise but designate 60 dB DNL/CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dB DNL/CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses and maintain 70 dB DNL/CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.

NS-1-b Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB DNL/CNEL or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 4 (General Plan Table 9-2).

NS-1-c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB DNL/CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS1-a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB Leq interior noise level standards set in Table 4 (General Plan Table 9-2) as conditions of permit approval.

NS-1-e Update Noise Ordinance. Update the Noise Ordinance to ensure that noise exposure information and specific standards for both exterior and interior noise and measurement criteria are consistent with this General Plan and changing conditions within the city and with noise control regulations or policies enacted after the adoption of this element.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 4
Noise Exposure from Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Maximum Exterior
Noise Level (dB)1
Maximum Interior
Noise Level (dB)
DNL/CNEL (dB) Leq
2 Residential 65 45 --
Transient Lodging 65 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 --
Theatres, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meetings Halls 65 -- 45
Office Buildings -- -- 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums -- -- 45
1 Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Source: Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element, Table 9-2 Table 5
Noise Exposure from Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Sources Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7am to 10pm) Nighttime (10pm to 7am) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dB 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dB 70 60
1 The Department of Development and Resource Management Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures.
2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas are unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus 5 dB.

Source: Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element, Table 9-3 NS-1-f Performance Standards. Implement performance standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on (General Plan) Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 4 (General Plan Table 9-2) and Policies NS-1-a through NS-1-c.

NS-1-g Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Facades with substantial weight and insulation;
 Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas;  Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

 Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
 Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends;  Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

NS-1-h Interior Noise Level Requirement. Comply with the State Code requirement that any new multifamily residential, hotel, or dorm buildings must be designed to incorporate noise reduction measures to meet the 45 dB DNL interior noise criterion and apply this standard as well to all new single-family residential and noise sensitive uses.

NS-1-i Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial, or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 4 and 5 (General Plan Tables 9-2 and 9-3) to determine impacts and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with those tables as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

Noise mitigation measures may include:
 The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
 Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings;  Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers;  Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and  Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.

NS-1-j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

DNL/CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.

NS-1-k Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS1-i, to determine conformance with the policies of this Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means.

NS-1-o Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.

Fresno Municipal Code
The provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code which would be most applicable to this project are reproduced below.
15-2506. Noise.

The provisions of this section apply to noise sources resulting from and relating to new development or the expansion of a use or activity. Should there be a conflict between this section and any rule or regulation set forth in an airport plan, the airport plan shall govern. Exceptions to this section are listed in Subsection G. Noise-Related Definitions are located in Section 15-6802.

All projects are subject to FMC Chapter 10, Article 1, Noise Regulations.

B. Transportation Noise Standards. The standards listed in Table 4 (Municipal Code Table 15-2506-B) represent maximum allowable noise exposure from transportation-related (vehicles and trains) noise sources.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 6
Noise Exposure from Transportation Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Land Use
Maximum Exterior
Noise Level (dB)1,2
Maximum Interior
Noise Level (dB)
DNL/CNEL (dB) Leq
Residential 653 45 --
Transient Lodging 653 45 --
Medical Care Facility 653 45 --
Religious Assembly Facility, Meeting Hall 653 -- 45
Theatre, Auditorium -- -- 35
Office Building -- -- 45
School, Library, Museum -- -- 45
Other Noise-Sensitive Uses As determined by the Review Authority 1 Exterior noise areas exclude a) front and side yards, b) outdoor areas for projects along Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors and/or within Activity Centers (where application of the standards will be determined to the realization of mixed-use, multi-modal oriented-objectives. Interior noise areas include a) rear yards and courtyards and b) balconies or roof decks (no adjacent to BRT) if they are included in on-site open space calculations. 2 Where the location of exterior areas is unknown or not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied at the property line.
3 While 65 dB is the maximum level, projects should strive to reach 60 dB.

Source: Fresno Municipal Code, Table 15-2506-B.

C. Land Use Compatibility for New Development Proposed near Transportation Noise Sources. Table 7 (Municipal Code Table 15-2506-C) establishes the range of acceptable and unacceptable transportation noise exposure levels in order to determine whether a project is allowed to be sited near a transportation noise source and if noise attenuation measures would be required.

1. A: Satisfactory. The project may be permitted without requiring noise attenuation.

2. B: Analysis Required. The project is required to provide an analysis that details noise reduction measures that shall be integrated into the project design in order to reduce noise exposure to a conforming level.

3. C: Acoustic Study Required. The project is required to perform an acoustic study (see Subsection A of this section) and incorporate the resulting noise attenuation measures to reduce noise exposure to a conforming level.

4. D: Not Allowed. The project shall not be permitted.

5. E: Restricted. Only the specified project types shall be permitted.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 7
Land Use Compatibility for New Development Proposed Near Transportation Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Land Use DNL/CNEL (dB) Requirements and Limitations Residential, Transient Lodging, Medical Care
Facility, Religious Assembly Facility, Meeting
Hall, School, Library, Museum
Less than 65 Satisfactory
65 to 70
Analysis and integration of noise
reduction measures in project
design
70 to 75 Acoustic study and noise
attenuation measures required
Over 75 Not allowed
Theatre, Auditorium, Concert Hall,
Amphitheater
Less than 70
Analysis and integration of noise
reduction measures in project
design
Over 70 Not allowed
Office Building
Less than 70 Satisfactory
70 to 75
Analysis and integration of noise
reduction measures in project
design
Over 75 Acoustic study and noise
attenuation measures required
Industrial
Less than 75 Satisfactory
Over 75 Acoustic study and noise
attenuation measures required
Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Parks
Less than 65 Satisfactory
65 to 80
Acoustic study and noise
attenuation measures required;
avoid uses involving
concentrations of people or
animals
Over 80
Limited to open space; avoid
uses involving concentrations of
people or animals
D. Stationary Noise Sources.

1. New or expanded development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be permitted if noise levels, due to existing stationary noise sources, would exceed the standards of Table 8 (Municipal Code Table 15-2506-D). Such projects shall be permitted with the incorporation of noise attenuation measures stipulated in an acoustic study per Subsection A to reduce the noise exposure to compliant levels.

2. New or expanded development of major noise-generating stationary uses shall not be permitted if noise levels impinging on existing adjacent noise-sensitive uses would exceed the standards of Table 8 (Municipal Code Table 15-2506-D). Such projects shall be permitted with the incorporation of noise attenuation measures stipulated in an acoustic study per Subsection A to reduce the noise exposure to compliant levels.

3. The Director shall determine uses that qualify as "noise-sensitive." Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

4. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB.

Table 8
Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise Sources1
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7am to 10pm) Nighttime (10pm to 7am) Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dB 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dB 70 60
1 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use.

Source: Fresno Municipal Code, Table 15-2506-D
H. Exemptions.

1. Noise-Sensitive Sites Adjacent to Elevated Noise-Generating Land Uses. In instances where noise-generating land uses are elevated 12 feet or more (i.e., elevated State Routes) from the natural grade of a noise-sensitive site, and the Review Authority determines that a masonry wall would not mitigate outdoor noise to acceptable levels, a wall may be waived, however the interior of the noise-sensitive use shall not exceed the indoor space standards in Table 6 (Municipal Code Table 15- 2506-B).

2. Emergencies. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency, or the emission of sound in the performance of emergency work.

3. Warning Devices. Warning devices necessary for the protection of the public safety, such as police, fire, and ambulance sirens.

4. Special Events. Occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events, provided that such events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the City.

5. Municipal Solid Waste Collection. Collection of solid waste, vegetative waste, and recyclable materials by the City or under contract with the City.

6. Public Works Construction Projects, Maintenance, and Repair. Street, utility, and similar construction projects undertaken by or under contract to the City, or the State of California or a public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as maintenance and repair operations conducted by such parties, including street sweeping, debris and litter removal, removal of downed wires, restoring electrical service, repairing traffic signals, unplugging sewers, vacuuming catch basins, repairing of damaged poles, removal of abandoned vehicles, repairing of water hydrants and mains, gas lines, oil lines, sewers, storm drains, roads, and sidewalks.

7. Schools. School bells and school-sanctioned outdoor activities such as pep rallies, sports games, and band practice.

8. Religious Assembly Facilities and Other Similar Organizations. Unamplified bells, chimes, or other similar devices used by religious assembly facilities and other Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

houses of religious worship, as such devices are played between the time period of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and the playing period does not exceed five minutes in any one hour.

9. Agricultural. Noise resulting from Crop Cultivation.

10. Public Utility Facilities. Facilities including, but not limited to, 60-cycle electric power transformers and related equipment, sewer lift stations, municipal wells, and pumping.

Environmental Setting – Existing Ambient Noise and Vibration Environment
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the primary intended use of the land. Places where people live, sleep, recreate, worship, and study are generally considered to be sensitive to noise because intrusive noise can be disruptive to these activities.

The noise-sensitive land uses which would potentially be affected by the project consist of nearby residential receptors. Existing agricultural land uses are also located nearby but are not considered to be noise-sensitive. The project area and nearby land uses are shown on Figure 1.

Existing Traffic Noise Levels along Project Area Roadway Network The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to develop existing noise contours expressed in terms of DNL for major roadways within the project study area. The FHWA Model predicts hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. Estimates of the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical 24-hour period were used to develop DNL values from Leq values.

Traffic data in the form of AM and PM peak hour movements for existing conditions were obtained from the client prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. Average daily traffic volumes were conservatively estimated by applying a factor of 5 to the sum of AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Using these data and the FHWA Model, traffic noise levels were calculated. The traffic noise level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline and distances from the centerlines of selected roadways to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB DNL contours are summarized in Table 9.

In many cases, the actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA Model. Factors such as roadway curvature, roadway grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers may affect actual sound propagation. It is also recognized that existing sensitive land uses within the project vicinity are located varying distances from the centerlines of the local roadway network. The 50-foot reference distance is utilized in this assessment to provide a reference position at which changes in existing and future traffic noise levels resulting from the project can be evaluated. Appendix B contains the FWHA Model inputs for existing conditions.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 9
Existing (2021) Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Seg. Intersection Direction
DNL 50
Feet from
Roadway
Distance to Contour (feet)
70 dB
DNL
65 dB
DNL
60 dB
DNL
1 (1) Butler Ave / Willow Ave North -- -- -- --
2 South 63 16 35 75
3 East 65 24 53 113
4 West 65 23 49 105
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 63 16 35 75
6 South 61 13 28 61
7 East 65 22 47 100
8 West 64 21 45 97
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 62 14 29 63
10 South 60 10 23 49
11 East 71 59 127 273
12 West 71 62 133 287
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 63 16 35 75 14 South 63 16 35 75
15 East -- -- -- --
16 West -- -- -- --
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 63 16 35 75 18 South 63 16 35 75
19 East -- -- -- --
20 West -- -- -- --
Blank cell = no traffic data was provided
Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 with inputs from VRPA. Appendix B contains the FHWA Model inputs.

Existing Overall Ambient Noise Environment at the Project Site The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is defined primarily by noise from traffic on S. Willow Avenue, and by intermittent railroad operations on the adjacent SJVR track. To generally quantify the existing ambient noise environment at the project site, BAC conducted longterm (72-hour) ambient noise level measurements at two (2) locations from October 5th to 7th ,
2021. The long-term noise survey locations are shown on Figure 1, identified as sites N-1 and N-2. Photographs of the noise survey location are provided in Appendix C.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Models LxT and 831 precision integrating sound level meters were used to complete the noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated immediately before and after use with an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all specifications of the American National Standards Institute requirements for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

The long-term noise level measurement survey results are summarized in Table 10. The detailed results of the long-term ambient noise survey are contained in Appendix D in tabular format and graphically in Appendix E.

Table 10
Summary of Long-Term Noise Survey Measurement Results – October 5-7, 20211 Site Description2 Date
DNL
(dBA)
Average Measured Hourly Noise
Levels (dBA)
Daytime3 Nighttime4
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
N-1: Approximately 50’ from
center of SJVR track
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 61 46 60 55 63
Wednesday, October 6, 2021 61 55 65 54 60
Thursday, October 7, 2021 52 49 65 44 58
N-2: Approximately 50’ from
centerline of S. Willow Ave
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 64 62 78 57 78
Wednesday, October 6, 2021 64 62 79 56 74
Thursday, October 7, 2021 63 62 78 55 75
1 Detailed summaries of the noise monitoring results are provided in Appendices D and E. 2 Long-term noise survey locations are shown on Figure 1. 3 Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
4 Nighttime hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
Long-term noise measurement site N-1, located immediately adjacent to the project site (due to security purposes), was specifically selected to be representative of the railroad noise level environment at the project site. Long-term noise measurement site N-2, located along the western boundary of the project site, was specifically selected to be representative of the S. Willow Avenue traffic noise level environment at the project site. The Table 10 data indicate that measured existing day-night average and average hourly noise levels at the project site were generally consistent during the 72-hour monitoring period.

Existing Ambient Vibration Environment at the Project Site The primary source of vibration at the project site would be associated with railroad activity on the adjacent SJVR track to the north. During site visit on March 4th, 2021, vibration levels were below the threshold of perception at the project site. Nonetheless, to quantify existing vibration levels at the project site, BAC conducted long-term (72-hour) vibration measurements from October 5th to 7th, 2021 at approximately 50 feet from the SJVR track. The long-term vibration survey location is shown on Figure 1, identified as site V-1. Photographs of the vibration survey equipment are provided in Appendix C.

A Larson-Davis Laboratories Model LxT precision integrating sound level meter equipped with a vibration transducer was used to complete the measurements. The results are presented graphically in Appendix F and are summarized in Table 11.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 11
Summary of Railroad Vibration Monitoring Results – October 5-7, 2021 Date Number of Train Passbys
Highest Measured Train Passby
Vibration Level, (VdB)1
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1 81
Wednesday, October 6, 2021 2 80
Thursday, October 7, 2021 0 --
1 Long-term vibration survey location shown on Figure 1 (site V-1).

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
The Table 11 data indicate that measured maximum railroad passby vibration levels at the project site ranged from 80 VdB to 81 VdB.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance
For the purposes of this report, noise and vibration impacts are considered significant if the project would result in:
 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 other applicable standards of other agencies; or  Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, the last threshold listed above is not discussed further.

The following criteria based on standards established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Fresno General Plan Municipal Code were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise and vibration resulting from the project:
 A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards established by the Fresno General Plan or Municipal Code.
 A significant impact would be identified if off-site traffic noise exposure or on-site activities generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase would be identified relative to the noise level increase significance criteria established in Policy NS-1-j of the Fresno General Plan.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

 A significant impact would be identified if project construction activities or railroad operations would expose sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels.

Specifically, an impact would be identified if groundborne vibration levels due to these sources would exceed the FTA (railroad operations) or Caltrans (construction activities) groundborne vibration impact criteria provided in Tables 1-3.

Noise Impacts Associated with Project-Generated Increases in Off-Site Traffic With development of the project, traffic volumes on the local roadway network will increase.

Those increases in daily traffic volumes will result in a corresponding increase in traffic noise levels at existing uses located along those roadways. The FHWA Model was used with traffic input data from the traffic impact analysis (prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc.) to predict project traffic noise level increases relative to Existing (2021) and Cumulative (2042) conditions.

Impact 1: Increases in Existing Traffic Noise Levels due to the Project Traffic data in the form of AM and PM peak hour movements for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions in the project area roadway network were obtained from the project transportation impact analysis completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were conservatively estimated by applying a factor of 5 to the sum of AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Existing versus Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels on the local roadway network are shown in Table 12. The following section includes an assessment of predicted traffic noise levels relative to the noise level increase significance criteria identified in Policy NS-1-j of the Fresno General Plan. The Table 12 data are provided in terms of DNL at a standard distance of 50 feet from the centerlines of the project-area roadways. Appendix B contains the FWHA Model inputs.

It should be noted that the FHWA Model predictions presented in Table 12 are based on inputs that include peak hour traffic volumes, day/night and truck type percentages (e.g., medium and heavy trucks), vehicle speed, and distances from roadway centerlines. The FHWA Model does not account for non-traffic ambient noise sources such as nearby wildlife (e.g., birds chipping) or other anthropogenic noise sources within an area (e.g., distant traffic from other roadways, recreational activities, commercial or industrial operations, etc.).

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 12
Traffic Noise Modeling Results and Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Seg. Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 50 feet,
dB (DNL) Substantial
E E+P Increase Increase?
1 (1) Butler Ave / Willow Ave North -- -- -- No
2 South 62.7 63.6 0.9 No
3 East 65.3 65.5 0.2 No
4 West 64.8 65.2 0.4 No
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 62.6 63.2 0.6 No
6 South 61.3 61.8 0.5 No
7 East 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
8 West 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 61.5 62.1 0.6 No
10 South 59.8 59.9 0.1 No
11 East 71.1 71.1 0.0 No
12 West 71.4 71.5 0.1 No
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 62.6 63.6 1.0 No 14 South 62.7 63.4 0.7 No
15 East -- 51.4 51.4 Yes
16 West -- -- -- No
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 62.6 63.4 0.8 No 18 South 62.7 63.2 0.5 No
19 East -- 51.4 51.4 Yes
20 West -- -- -- No
Blank cell = no traffic data was provided
Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 with inputs from VRPA. Appendix B contains the FHWA Model inputs.

As stated previously, the FHWA Model does not account for non-traffic ambient noise sources such as nearby wildlife or other anthropogenic noise sources within an area. Consideration of such sources typically results in higher ambient noise levels (i.e., existing no project) than those predicted by the FHWA Model alone.

As indicated in Table 12, the proposed project’s contribution to traffic noise level increases is predicted to exceed applicable General Plan Policy NS-1-j increase significance criterion of 3 dB DNL along two (2) of the roadway segments evaluated in the existing conditions analysis – segments 15 and 19, which are access points to the development located on the project site.

Specifically, the traffic noise level increases along roadway segments 15 and 19 are calculated to be approximately 51 dB DNL.

As discussed above, baseline ambient conditions are considerably higher than baseline traffic noise levels alone. When project traffic noise generation is compared to the measured ambient day-night average (DNL) levels within the vicinity of roadway segments 15 and 19 on the project site (approximately 64 dB DNL at site N-2), the project-generated traffic noise level increases along the roadway segments are calculated be less than 1 dB DNL (0.4 dB DNL). This is a more accurate representation of actual project-related noise level increases than the “traffic-only” noise increases shown in Table 12. Thus, project-related increases in traffic noise levels would not Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

substantially exceed measured ambient noise conditions in the project area relative to the applicable General Plan Policy NS-1-j increase significance criterion. Finally, although existing residential uses were not identified within 50 feet from the centerline of roadway segments 15 and 19 (located within the project area), it should be noted that the predicted Existing Plus Project traffic noise level of approximately 51 dB DNL at 50 feet along the segments is well below the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code exterior noise level standard of 65 dB DNL applicable to transportation noise sources affecting residential uses.

Based on the analysis presented above, including consideration of measured existing ambient noise conditions within the project area, off-site traffic noise impacts related to increases in traffic resulting from the implementation of the project (Existing vs. Existing Plus Project conditions) are identified as being less than significant.

Impact 2: Increases in Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels due to the Project Traffic data in the form of AM and PM peak hour movements for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions in the project area roadway network were obtained from the project transportation impact analysis completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were conservatively estimated by applying a factor of 5 to the sum of AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Cumulative versus Cumulative Plus Project traffic noise levels on the local roadway network are shown in Table 13. The following section includes an assessment of predicted traffic noise levels relative to the noise level increase significance criteria identified in Policy NS-1-j of the Fresno General Plan. The Table 13 data are provided in terms of DNL at a standard distance of 50 feet from the centerlines of the project-area roadways. Appendix B contains the FWHA Model inputs.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 13
Traffic Noise Modeling Results and Project-Related Traffic Noise Increases Cumulative vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Seg. Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 50 feet,
dB (DNL) Substantial
C C+P Increase Increase?
1 (1) Butler Ave / Willow Ave North -- -- -- No
2 South 65.2 65.8 0.6 No
3 East 67.8 67.9 0.1 No
4 West 67.5 67.7 0.2 No
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 65.3 65.6 0.3 No
6 South 64.3 64.5 0.2 No
7 East 67.0 67.0 0.0 No
8 West 66.7 66.8 0.1 No
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 64.6 64.9 0.3 No
10 South 62.1 62.1 0.0 No
11 East 73.9 73.9 0.0 No
12 West 74.2 74.2 0.0 No
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 65.3 65.8 0.5 No 14 South 65.2 65.7 0.5 No
15 East -- 51.4 51.4 Yes
16 West -- -- -- No
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 65.3 65.7 0.4 No 18 South 65.2 65.6 0.4 No
19 East -- 51.4 51.4 Yes
20 West -- -- -- No
Blank cell = no traffic data was provided
Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 with inputs from VRPA. Appendix B contains the FHWA Model inputs.

As stated previously, the FHWA Model does not account for non-traffic ambient noise sources such as nearby wildlife or other anthropogenic noise sources within an area. Consideration of such sources typically results in higher ambient noise levels (i.e., cumulative no project) than those predicted by the FHWA Model alone.

The Table 13 data indicate that the proposed project’s contribution to traffic noise level increases is predicted to exceed applicable General Plan Policy NS-1-j increase significance criterion of 3 dB DNL along two (2) of the roadway segments evaluated in the cumulative conditions analysis – segments 15 and 19 (access points to the development located on the project site). Specifically, the traffic noise level increases along roadway segments 15 and 19 are calculated to be approximately 51 dB DNL.

Future (cumulative) no project noise levels with consideration of future ambient conditions would be considerably higher than future plus project traffic noise levels alone. Assuming a future no project ambient noise level of 66 dB DNL at the project site, which includes an increase of 2 dB DNL relative to the measured ambient day-night noise level of 64 dB DNL at ambient noise measurement site N-2 (equivalent to a 50% increase in traffic volumes relative to existing traffic conditions), future plus project traffic noise level increases along roadway segments 15 and 19 are calculated be less than 1 dB DNL (0.4 dB DNL), which would not exceed the applicable Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

General Plan Policy NS-1-j increase significance criterion of 3 dB DNL. Finally, although existing residential uses were not identified within 50 feet from the centerline of roadway segments 15 and 19 (located within the project area), it should be noted that the predicted Cumulative Plus Project traffic noise level of approximately 51 dB DNL at 50 feet along the segments is well below the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code exterior noise level standard of 65 dB DNL applicable to transportation noise sources affecting residential uses.

Based on the analysis presented above, including consideration of measured existing and estimated future ambient noise conditions within the project area, off-site traffic noise impacts related to increases in traffic resulting from the implementation of the project (Cumulative vs.

Cumulative Plus Project conditions) are identified as being less than significant.

Off-Site Noise Impacts Associated with Proposed Park Activities Future activities occurring within the proposed park at the northwest corner of the project area have been identified as a primary noise source associated with the project. The location of the proposed park is shown on Figure 2. The nearest existing noise-sensitive uses have been identified as residences located to north and northwest of the proposed park. An analysis of future park activity noise levels at those nearby existing residential uses follows.

Impact 3: Project Park Noise Levels at Existing Residential Uses Noise generated by community parks varies depending on whether the parks are intended for passive or active use. Passive use includes picnic and sitting areas whereas active use incudes playing fields and play structures. For the purposes of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that the proposed park could generate noise levels resembling an active-use park during worst-case hours. BAC file data for parks of this variety indicate average and maximum noise levels of up to 55 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax (respectively) at a distance of 100 feet.

The Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code establish noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax for stationary (non-transportation) noise sources affecting noise-sensitive (residential) uses during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). During nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), the General Plan and Municipal Code establish noise level limits of 45 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax. For the purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that future usage of the proposed community park would occur during daytime hours only.

The outdoor activity areas (backyards) of the nearest existing residences to the north and northwest are located approximately 420 feet and 450 feet (respectively) from the effective noise center of the proposed park. Based on the reference noise levels cited above, and assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), park activity noise levels are projected to range from 42 dB Leq to 43 dB Leq and 57 dB Lmax to 58 dB Lmax at the backyards of the nearest residences. Thus, noise levels associated with project park activities are predicted to satisfy the applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code daytime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax.

BAC measurement site N-2, located approximately 50 feet from the centerline of S. Willow Avenue, is believed to be representative of the ambient noise level environment along the Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

roadway. The nearest existing residences to the north and northwest of the proposed park also maintain a separation of approximately 50 feet from the centerline of S. Willow Avenue. The results from the BAC ambient noise level survey, presented in Table 8 of this report, indicate that measured day-night average noise levels at site N-2 were approximately 64 dB DNL. As mentioned previously, a project-generated increase in noise levels of 3 dB DNL or more would be required for a finding of a significant impact at a noise-sensitive receiver according to the FICON increase significance criteria. Given the measured day-night average noise level of 64 dB DNL and based on the predicted noise levels cited above, the increases in ambient day-night average noise levels resulting from project park activities are calculated to be less than 0.1 dB DNL at the nearest existing residences to the north and northwest, which would be well below the General Plan Policy NS-1-j increase significance criterion of 3 dB DNL.

Because project park noise levels are predicted to satisfy the applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses, and because noise exposure from park activities is not expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels at those uses relative to the applicable General Plan increase significance criterion, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Off-Site Noise Impacts Associated with Project Construction Activities Impact 4: Project Construction Noise Levels at Existing Residential Uses During project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading excavation, paving, and building construction, which would increase ambient noise levels when in use. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how it is operated, and how well it is maintained.

Noise exposure at any single point outside the project work area would also vary depending upon the proximity of equipment activities to that point. The outdoor activity areas (backyards) of the nearest existing residences are located approximately 30 feet away from where construction activities could occur on the project site.

Table 14 includes the range of maximum noise levels for equipment commonly used in general construction projects at full-power operation at a distance of 50 feet. Not all of these construction activities would be required of this project. The Table 14 data also include predicted maximum equipment noise levels at the backyards of the nearest existing residences located approximately 30 feet away, which assume a standard spherical spreading loss of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 14
Reference and Projected Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Description
Reference Maximum Noise
Level at 50 Feet (dBA)
Projected Maximum Noise
Level at 30 feet (dBA)
Air compressor 80 84
Backhoe 80 84
Ballast equalizer 82 86
Ballast tamper 83 87
Compactor 82 86
Concrete mixer 85 89
Concrete pump 82 86
Concrete vibrator 76 80
Crane, mobile 83 87
Dozer 85 89
Generator 82 89
Grader 85 86
Impact wrench 85 89
Loader 80 89
Paver 85 84
Pneumatic tool 85 89
Pump 77 89
Saw 76 81
Scarifier 83 80
Scraper 85 87
Shovel 82 89
Spike driver 77 86
Tie cutter 84 81
Tie handler 80 88
Tie inserter 85 84
Truck 84 89
Source: Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-1 (2018) Based on the equipment noise levels in Table 14, worst-case project construction equipment maximum noise levels at the backyards of the nearest existing residential uses located 30 feet away could range from 80 to 89 dB. Thus, depending upon the location, equipment types and associated duration of operations within the project area, it is possible that worst-case on-site project construction noise levels could potentially exceed the applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code noise level criteria at the nearest existing residential uses. Further, it is possible that a portion of the project construction equipment could result in substantial short-term increases over ambient maximum noise levels at the nearest existing residential uses. As a result, noise impacts associated with project on-site construction activities are identified as being potentially significant.

Mitigation for Impact 4: On-Site Construction Noise Control Measures MM-4: To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project on-site construction operations:

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

 All on-site noise-generating construction activities should be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
 The project shall utilize temporary construction noise control measures including the use of temporary noise barriers, or other appropriate measures as mitigation for noise generated during construction.
 All equipment and vehicles should be powered off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be prohibited.
 All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
 Select quiet equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. All noiseproducing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines should be equipped with manufacturer-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition. Electrically powered equipment should be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive uses.  Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
 Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.

Significance of Impact 4 after Mitigation: Less than Significant Off-Site Vibration Impacts Associated with Project Construction Activities Impact 5: Project Construction Vibration Levels at Existing Residential Uses During project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction. The nearest existing sensitive structures (residences) are located approximately 50 feet from construction activities which could occur within the project site.

Table 15 includes the range of vibration levels for equipment commonly used in general construction projects at a distance of 25 feet. The Table 15 data also include predicted equipment vibration levels at the nearest existing residences to the project site located approximately 50 feet away.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 15
Reference and Projected Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV at 25 Feet1 Projected PPV at 50 Feet Hoe ram 0.089 0.032
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.032
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.032
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Source: 2018 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Table 7-4) and BAC calculations As shown in Table 15, vibration levels generated from project construction activities at the nearest residences located approximately 50 feet away are predicted to be well below the Caltrans thresholds for damage to residential structures of 0.5 in/sec PPV shown in Table 2 (building structure vibration criteria). In addition, the projected equipment vibration levels in Table 15 are within the range of the “barely/slightly perceptible” human response threshold as defined by Caltrans in Table 3 (vibration annoyance potential threshold criteria). Therefore, on-site construction within the project area is not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration levels at nearby existing residential uses.

Because vibration levels due to project construction activities are expected to satisfy the applicable Caltrans groundborne impact vibration criteria, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

Noise Impacts Upon the Development
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) holding that CEQA is primarily concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment and generally does not require agencies to analyze the impact of existing conditions on a project’s future users or residents. Nevertheless, the City of Fresno has policies that address existing/future conditions affecting the proposed project, which are discussed in the following section.

On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts at Proposed Development
Impact 6: Future Exterior Traffic Noise Levels at Proposed Development The FHWA Model was used with future traffic data to predict future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses of the development. The future (Cumulative Plus Project) average daily traffic (ADT) volume for S. Willow Avenue was calculated using data provided in the project traffic impact analysis prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. Specifically, the future S. Willow Avenue ADT volume adjacent to the project site was conservatively estimated by applying a factor of 5 to the sum of AM and PM peak hour conditions. The predicted future S.

Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the proposed development are summarized in Table 16.

Detailed FHWA Model inputs and results are provided in Appendix G.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 16
Predicted Future Exterior S. Willow Avenue Traffic Noise Levels at the Project Site1 Location Receiver Description
Distance
(ft)2
Offset
(dB)3
Future Exterior
DNL (dB)
Park Neighborhood park 220 55
Residences
(Lots 1-4, 189-199)
Backyards 60 64
First-floor building facades 70 63
Upper-floor building facades 70 +2 65
1 A complete listing of FHWA Model inputs and results are provided in Appendix G. 2 Distances scaled from center of park and other said locations to roadway centerline using the provided site plans. 3 An offset of +2 dB was applied at upper-floors for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated locations.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
The Fresno General Plan does not currently have adopted noise level criteria for park uses affected by transportation noise sources. However, the Fresno Municipal Code establishes a land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL or less as satisfactory for new proposed park uses. As indicated in Table 16, the predicted future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise level of 55 dB DNL at the proposed park would satisfy the Municipal Code land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL for park uses.

The project site plans indicate that 6-foot-tall block walls (traffic noise barriers) are proposed to be constructed along residential lots adjacent to S. Willow Avenue. The locations of the proposed barriers along the roadway are shown on Figure 2. The results presented in Table 17 below contain predicted future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the nearest residential ground level locations (i.e., backyards and first-floor building facades) with consideration of the noise attenuation that would be provided by the proposed 6-foot-tall walls. Complete listings of inputs and elevation assumptions used for the barrier insertion loss evaluation are provided in Appendix H. Because elevated upper-floor building facades of the residences constructed adjacent to S.

Willow Avenue would not receive shielding from the proposed 6-foot-tall walls, attenuated noise levels for those locations were not included in Table 17.

Table 17
Predicted Future Exterior Willow Avenue Traffic Noise Levels with Proposed 6’ Noise Barriers1 Location Receiver Description Future Exterior DNL w/Barriers (dB)2 Residences
(Lots 1-4, 189-199)
Backyards 58
First-floor building facades 57
1 Locations of proposed traffic noise barriers are illustrated on Figure 2. 2 Predicted noise levels include consideration of shielding provided by proposed 6-foot-tall noise barriers at the locations illustrated on Figure 2. A complete listing of inputs and elevation assumptions used for the barrier insertion loss evaluation are provided as Appendix H.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
As indicated in Table 17, future exterior S. Willow Avenue traffic noise levels at the backyards proposed nearest to the roadway are predicted to satisfy the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard applicable to residential uses. The predicted Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

exterior compliance above includes consideration of the shielding that would be provided by the construction of 6-foot-tall noise barriers along S. Willow Avenue, as proposed.

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

Impact 7: Future Interior Traffic Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses After construction of the proposed 6-foot-tall traffic noise barriers at the locations shown on Figure 2, future S. Willow Avenue traffic noise level exposure is predicted to be approximately 57 dB DNL at the nearest first-floor residential building facades (Appendix H-2). Due to reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions, and lack of shielding provided by the proposed walls, noise levels at the upper-floor building facades of those residences are predicted to approach 65 dB DNL. The Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code establish an interior noise level standard of 45 dB Leq within residential interior areas for transportation noise sources. In addition, Policy NS-1-h of the General Plan requires compliance with a State Building Code requirement of 45 dB DNL within the interior areas of new residential uses. To satisfy the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level limits of 45 dB DNL/Leq, minimum noise reductions of 12 and 20 dB would be needed for compliance within the first- and upper-floor interior areas (respectively) of residences constructed nearest to S. Willow Avenue.

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

On-Site Railroad Noise Impacts at Proposed Development
Impact 8: Future Exterior Railroad Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses As mentioned previously, BAC ambient noise measurement site N-1 was specifically selected to be representative of the existing ambient noise level environment associated with SJVR operations at the project site. According to the data from the 72-hour ambient noise monitoring effort, railroad activity adjacent to the project site consisted of approximately two (2) daily railroad passbys (evenly distributed between daytime and nighttime hours). The noise generation for individual train passbys varies depending on train length, speed, warning horn usage, track condition and number of locomotives. From the results of the long-term railroad noise survey conducted at site N-1, it was determined that the existing railroad noise exposure adjacent to the project site is approximately 61 dB DNL at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the track. The Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

measured noise levels at site N-1 included noise generated from locomotives, rail cars, warning horns, and bells from a nearby at-grade crossing at S. Willow Avenue.

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

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

18. Table 18
Predicted Future Exterior SJVR Railroad Noise Levels at the Project Site Location Receiver Description
Distance
(ft)1
Offset
(dB)2
Future Exterior
DNL (dB)3
Park Neighborhood park 160 55
Residence
(Lot 103)
Backyard 150 -5 51
First-floor building facade 145 56
Upper-floor building facades 145 +2 58
Residences
(Lots 104-115)
Backyards 210 -7 47
First-floor building facades 160 55
Upper-floor building facades 160 +2 57
Residence
(Lot 74)
Backyard 80 60
First-floor building facade 75 60
Upper-floor building facades 75 +2 62
1 Distances scaled from center of park and other said locations to center of track using the provided site plans. 2 An offset of +2 dB was applied at upper-floors for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated locations.

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

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
The data in Table 18 above contains predicted future railroad noise levels at the proposed development. However, the project site plans indicate that an 8-foot-tall block wall (railroad noise barrier) is proposed to be constructed along northern end of the project area adjacent to the SJVR track. The location of the proposed barrier along the railroad track is illustrated on Figure 2. The following results presented in Table 19 contain predicted future railroad noise levels at the nearest residential ground level locations (i.e., backyards and first-floor building facades) with consideration of the noise attenuation that would be provided by the proposed 8-foot-tall wall, which is calculated to provide approximately 5 to 7 dB of railroad noise attenuation at those locations. Because elevated upper-floor building facades of the residences constructed adjacent to the SJVR track would not receive shielding from the proposed 8-foot-tall wall, attenuated noise levels for those locations were not included in Table 19.

Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

Table 19
Predicted Future Exterior SJVR Railroad Noise Levels with Proposed 8’ Noise Barrier1 Location Receiver Description Future Exterior DNL w/Barrier (dB)2 Park Neighborhood park 51
Residence
(Lot 103)
Backyard 46
First-floor building facade 46
Residences
(Lots 104-115)
Backyards 42
First-floor building facades 50
Residence
(Lot 74)
Backyard 54
First-floor building facade 53
1 Location of proposed railroad noise barrier is illustrated on Figure 2. 2 Predicted noise levels include consideration of shielding provided by proposed 8-foot-tall noise barrier at the location illustrated on Figure 2, which is calculated to provide approximately 5-7 dB of attenuation at the receivers above (dependent upon on distance to barrier).

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2021)
As mentioned previously, the Fresno Municipal Code establishes a land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL or less as satisfactory for new proposed park uses. As indicated in Table 19, the predicted future railroad noise level of 51 dB DNL at the proposed park would satisfy the Municipal Code land use compatibility noise level limit of 65 dB DNL for park uses. The predicted compliance at the park includes consideration of attenuation that would be provided by the construction of an 8-foot-tall noise barrier adjacent to the SJVR track, as proposed.

The Table 19 data indicate that future exterior railroad noise level exposure at the backyards proposed nearest to the track is predicted to satisfy the Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard applicable to residential uses. The predicted exterior compliance at the nearest backyards includes consideration of attenuation that would be provided by the construction of an 8-foot-tall noise barrier adjacent to the SJVR track, as proposed.

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

Impact 9: Future Interior Railroad Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses After construction of the proposed 8-foot-tall railroad noise barrier at the location illustrated on Figure 2, future railroad noise level exposure is calculated to be approximately 53 dB DNL or less at the nearest first-floor residential building facades. Due to reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated positions, and lack of shielding provided by the proposed 8-foot wall, noise levels at the nearest upper-floor building facades are predicted to approach 62 dB DNL. The Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code establish an interior noise level standard of 45 dB Leq within residential interior areas for transportation noise sources. In addition, Policy NS-1-h of the General Plan requires compliance with a State Building Code requirement of 45 dB DNL within the interior areas of new residential uses. To satisfy the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level limits of 45 dB DNL/Leq, minimum noise reductions of 8 and 17 dB would Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

be needed for compliance within the first- and upper-floor interior areas (respectively) of residences constructed nearest to the SJVR track.

Standard building construction (stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather-stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), typically results in an exterior to interior noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open. This level of noise reduction would be adequate to reduce future railroad noise levels within all levels of residences in this development to 45 dB DNL/Leq or less, which result in satisfaction of the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level criteria cited above. Nonetheless, mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) should be provided for all residences of the development to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for additional acoustical isolation.

Because future railroad noise levels are expected to satisfy the applicable General Plan and Municipal Code interior noise level criteria, this is impact is identified as being less than significant.

Although this impact is identified as being less than significant relative to compliance with applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code day-night average (DNL) interior noise level criteria, it should be noted that analysis of the data obtained from BAC noise survey site N-1 revealed that individual train passby events were measured to have maximum noise levels ranging from 85 dB Lmax to 91 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Based on those measured maximum (Lmax) train passby noise levels, it is recommended that all upper-floor bedroom windows of the lots identified on Figure 2 from which the SJVR track would be visible (i.e., north, east, and west-facing windows) be upgraded to a minimum STC rating of 32. The window assembly upgrades are recommended to reduce the potential for sleep disturbance from adjacent railroad operations. It is further recommended that disclosure statements be provided to all prospective residents of this development notifying of elevated noise levels during nighttime railroad passages.

On-Site Noise Impacts Associated with Proposed Park Activities Impact 10: Park Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses An analysis of park noise exposure at existing residential uses was presented in Impact 3 of this report. As indicated in that impact discussion, it was conservatively assumed that the proposed park could generate noise levels resembling an active-use park during worst-case hours. The impact discussion further cites that BAC file data for active-use parks indicate average and maximum noise levels of up to 55 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax (respectively) at a distance of 100 feet.

The Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code establish noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax for stationary (non-transportation) noise sources affecting noise-sensitive (residential) uses during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). During nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), the General Plan and Municipal Code establish noise level limits of 45 dB Leq and 60 dB Lmax. For the purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that future usage of the proposed community park would occur during daytime hours only.

The outdoor activity areas (backyards) of the nearest proposed residences maintain a separation of approximately 250 to 300 feet from the effective noise center of the proposed park. Based on Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC)
Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment
Autumn Ridge Residential Development – Fresno, California

the reference noise levels cited above, assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), and including shielding that would be provided by the building envelopes of proposed residences, park activity noise levels are projected to range from 38 dB Leq to 40 dB Leq and 53 dB Lmax to 55 dB Lmax at the backyards of the nearest proposed residences. Thus, noise levels associated with project park activities are predicted to satisfy the applicable Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code daytime noise level standards of 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at the nearest proposed residences of the development. As a result, this impact is identified as being less than significant.

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

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

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

This concludes BAC’s noise and vibration assessment of the Autumn Ridge Residential Development project in Fresno, California. Please contact BAC at (530) 537-2328 or [email protected] if you have any comments or questions regarding this report.

Appendix A
Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound. A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz.

IIC Impact Insulation Class (IIC): A single-number representation of a floor/ceiling partition’s impact generated noise insulation performance. The field-measured version of this number is the FIIC.

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

Masking The amount (or the process) by which the threshold of audibility is for one sound is raised by the presence of another (masking) sound.

Noise Unwanted sound.

Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the “Maximum” level, which is the highest RMS level.

RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

STC Sound Transmission Class (STC): A single-number representation of a partition’s noise insulation performance. This number is based on laboratory-measured, 16-band (1/3- octave) transmission loss (TL) data of the subject partition. The field-measured version of this number is the FSTC.
.-/]\\\\ BOLLARD ""J J)} Acoustical Consultants
Appendix B-1
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs Autumn Ridge Residential Development
File Name: 01 Existing
Model Run Date: 11/30/2021
% Med. % Hvy.

Segment Intersection Direction ADT Day % Night % Trucks Trucks Speed Distance 1 (1) Butler Ave / Wilow Ave North
2 South 4,325 83 17 2 1 40 50
3 East 7,965 83 17 2 1 40 50
4 West 7,060 83 17 2 1 40 50
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 4,250 83 17 2 1 40 50 6 South 3,170 83 17 2 1 40 50
7 East 6,640 83 17 2 1 40 50
8 West 6,270 83 17 2 1 40 50
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 2,500 83 17 2 1 45 50 10 South 1,685 83 17 2 1 45 50
11 East 12,310 83 17 2 2 55 50
12 West 13,285 83 17 2 2 55 50
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 4,250 83 17 2 1 40 50 14 South 4,325 83 17 2 1 40 50
15 East
16 West
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 4,250 83 17 2 1 40 50 18 South 4,325 83 17 2 1 40 50
19 East
20 West

BOLLARD
Acoustical
Appendix B-2
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs Autumn Ridge Residential Development
File Name: 02 Existing+Project
Model Run Date: 11/30/2021
% Med. % Hvy.

Segment Intersection Direction ADT Day % Night % Trucks Trucks Speed Distance 1 (1) Butler Ave / Wilow Ave North
2 South 5,380 83 17 2 1 40 50
3 East 8,345 83 17 2 1 40 50
4 West 7,735 83 17 2 1 40 50
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 4,885 83 17 2 1 40 50 6 South 3,550 83 17 2 1 40 50
7 East 6,690 83 17 2 1 40 50
8 West 6,475 83 17 2 1 40 50
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 2,865 83 17 2 1 45 50 10 South 1,700 83 17 2 1 45 50
11 East 12,345 83 17 2 2 55 50
12 West 13,600 83 17 2 2 55 50
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 5,345 83 17 2 1 40 50 14 South 5,095 83 17 2 1 40 50
15 East 870 83 17 1 1 25 50
16 West
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 5,095 83 17 2 1 40 50 18 South 4,890 83 17 2 1 40 50
19 East 865 83 17 1 1 25 50
20 West

BOLLARD
Acoustical
Appendix B-3
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs Autumn Ridge Residential Development
File Name: 03 Cumulative
Model Run Date: 11/30/2021
% Med. % Hvy.

Segment Intersection Direction ADT Day % Night % Trucks Trucks Speed Distance 1 (1) Butler Ave / Wilow Ave North
2 South 7,790 83 17 2 1 40 50
3 East 14,160 83 17 2 1 40 50
4 West 13,040 83 17 2 1 40 50
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 7,840 83 17 2 1 40 50 6 South 6,265 83 17 2 1 40 50
7 East 11,650 83 17 2 1 40 50
8 West 10,895 83 17 2 1 40 50
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 5,005 83 17 2 1 45 50 10 South 2,830 83 17 2 1 45 50
11 East 23,630 83 17 2 2 55 50
12 West 25,335 83 17 2 2 55 50
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 7,840 83 17 2 1 40 50 14 South 7,790 83 17 2 1 40 50
15 East
16 West
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 7,840 83 17 2 1 40 50 18 South 7,790 83 17 2 1 40 50
19 East
20 West

BOLLARD
Acoustical
Appendix B-4
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs Autumn Ridge Residential Development
File Name: 04 Cumulative+Project
Model Run Date: 11/30/2021
% Med. % Hvy.

Segment Intersection Direction ADT Day % Night % Trucks Trucks Speed Distance 1 (1) Butler Ave / Wilow Ave North
2 South 8,850 83 17 2 1 40 50
3 East 14,540 83 17 2 1 40 50
4 West 13,720 83 17 2 1 40 50
5 (2) Church Ave / Willow Ave North 8,485 83 17 2 1 40 50 6 South 6,650 83 17 2 1 40 50
7 East 11,700 83 17 2 1 40 50
8 West 11,105 83 17 2 1 40 50
9 (3) Jensen Ave / Willow Ave North 5,370 83 17 2 1 45 50 10 South 2,845 83 17 2 1 45 50
11 East 23,665 83 17 2 2 55 50
12 West 25,650 83 17 2 2 55 50
13 (4) N. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 8,930 83 17 2 1 40 50 14 South 8,680 83 17 2 1 40 50
15 East 870 83 17 1 1 25 50
16 West
17 (5) S. Project Driveway / Willow Ave North 8,680 83 17 2 1 40 50 18 South 8,475 83 17 2 1 40 50
19 East 865 83 17 1 1 25 50
20 West

BOLLARD
Acoustical
Legend
A: Noise measurement site N-1 facing south towards SJVR track and project site B: Noise measurement site N-2 facing southwest towards S. Willow Avenue C: Vibration measurement site V-1 north towards SJVR track from project site A B C
Appendix C
Autumn Ridge
Fresno, California
Noise & Vibration Survey Photographs
Noise Meter
Vibration Meter
Noise Meter
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 44 60 43 40
1:00 AM 64 85 41 39 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 46 69 39 37 Leq (Average) 53 40 46 64 42 55
3:00 AM 43 60 39 38 Lmax (Maximum) 71 51 60 85 57 63
4:00 AM 44 57 42 39 L50 (Median) 52 38 43 48 39 42
5:00 AM 46 63 45 42 L90 (Background) 49 35 39 45 37 40
6:00 AM 48 57 48 45
7:00 AM 53 64 52 49 Computed DNL (dB) 61
8:00 AM 50 60 49 46 % Daytime Energy 18%
9:00 AM 44 61 42 40 % Nighttime Energy 82%
10:00 AM 41 57 38 35
11:00 AM 44 71 38 35
12:00 PM 40 56 39 36
1:00 PM 43 67 39 36
2:00 PM 40 51 39 35
3:00 PM 43 57 41 36
4:00 PM 42 57 40 37
5:00 PM 44 61 42 39
6:00 PM 46 64 44 40
7:00 PM 47 57 45 41
8:00 PM 46 61 45 42
9:00 PM 46 57 44 41
10:00 PM 43 62 41 40
11:00 PM 42 57 41 39
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) GPS Coordinates 36°43'19.33" N
119°43'33.21" W
Appendix D-1
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Tuesday, October 05, 2021

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 41 56 39 38
1:00 AM 40 55 39 37 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 40 55 38 37 Leq (Average) 66 42 55 64 39 54
3:00 AM 39 53 38 36 Lmax (Maximum) 92 53 65 87 53 60
4:00 AM 42 56 41 39 L50 (Median) 47 39 42 46 38 41
5:00 AM 46 55 46 43 L90 (Background) 45 34 39 44 36 39
6:00 AM 47 62 46 44
7:00 AM 48 69 47 45 Computed DNL (dB) 61
8:00 AM 44 55 44 41 % Daytime Energy 64%
9:00 AM 42 60 40 37 % Nighttime Energy 36%
10:00 AM 66 92 40 36
11:00 AM 42 58 39 35
12:00 PM 45 64 42 37
1:00 PM 45 60 41 34
2:00 PM 50 71 40 36
3:00 PM 48 71 40 36
4:00 PM 44 68 41 37
5:00 PM 45 61 44 41
6:00 PM 47 61 46 43
7:00 PM 47 73 44 42
8:00 PM 44 53 44 42
9:00 PM 46 61 44 42
10:00 PM 64 87 43 41
11:00 PM 43 58 41 39
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) GPS Coordinates 36°43'19.33" N
119°43'33.21" W
Appendix D-2
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Wednesday, October 06, 2021

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 40 52 39 38
1:00 AM 41 58 39 37 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 45 67 39 38 Leq (Average) 57 41 49 49 40 44
3:00 AM 42 58 40 38 Lmax (Maximum) 89 53 65 67 52 58
4:00 AM 42 53 42 40 L50 (Median) 49 39 43 47 39 41
5:00 AM 44 55 44 42 L90 (Background) 47 35 40 44 37 40
6:00 AM 49 65 47 44
7:00 AM 49 59 49 47 Computed DNL (dB) 52
8:00 AM 49 68 46 42 % Daytime Energy 84%
9:00 AM 49 69 44 43 % Nighttime Energy 16%
10:00 AM 48 68 41 38
11:00 AM 46 67 39 35
12:00 PM 41 59 39 35
1:00 PM 47 73 42 39
2:00 PM 57 89 42 38
3:00 PM 44 57 43 38
4:00 PM 52 74 41 37
5:00 PM 44 58 42 38
6:00 PM 46 62 45 41
7:00 PM 45 53 45 41
8:00 PM 44 58 43 41
9:00 PM 44 59 43 41
10:00 PM 44 52 43 41
11:00 PM 43 58 42 40
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) GPS Coordinates 36°43'19.33" N
119°43'33.21" W
Appendix D-3
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Thursday, October 07, 2021

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 53 73 44 42
1:00 AM 60 88 42 40 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 51 74 40 38 Leq (Average) 65 59 62 60 51 57
3:00 AM 51 74 41 38 Lmax (Maximum) 86 73 78 88 73 78
4:00 AM 53 77 43 41 L50 (Median) 61 44 50 50 40 43
5:00 AM 57 77 46 43 L90 (Background) 51 36 41 47 38 41
6:00 AM 60 79 50 47
7:00 AM 65 79 61 51 Computed DNL (dB) 64
8:00 AM 65 86 54 49 % Daytime Energy 84%
9:00 AM 59 76 46 42 % Nighttime Energy 16%
10:00 AM 60 83 44 36
11:00 AM 59 75 44 36
12:00 PM 59 75 44 39
1:00 PM 59 76 45 38
2:00 PM 60 75 47 37
3:00 PM 63 79 58 41
4:00 PM 62 78 52 39
5:00 PM 63 77 56 44
6:00 PM 62 74 54 43
7:00 PM 62 86 52 43
8:00 PM 59 74 49 43
9:00 PM 59 73 47 42
10:00 PM 58 88 43 41
11:00 PM 54 75 42 40
GPS Coordinates 36°43'9.23" N
119°43'38.36" W
Appendix D-4
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Tuesday, October 05, 2021
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 53 72 41 39
1:00 AM 50 72 40 38 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 49 70 39 38 Leq (Average) 66 57 62 61 49 56
3:00 AM 49 72 39 37 Lmax (Maximum) 97 73 79 84 70 74
4:00 AM 52 73 42 39 L50 (Median) 60 43 49 48 39 42
5:00 AM 56 75 47 44 L90 (Background) 48 36 41 45 37 40
6:00 AM 59 76 48 45
7:00 AM 66 91 60 48 Computed DNL (dB) 64
8:00 AM 62 84 50 43 % Daytime Energy 88%
9:00 AM 59 75 43 39 % Nighttime Energy 12%
10:00 AM 58 73 43 37
11:00 AM 60 75 44 36
12:00 PM 61 77 46 37
1:00 PM 60 76 46 36
2:00 PM 66 97 51 39
3:00 PM 63 80 57 40
4:00 PM 63 82 54 41
5:00 PM 63 77 55 44
6:00 PM 62 75 53 46
7:00 PM 60 74 49 44
8:00 PM 59 78 47 43
9:00 PM 57 73 46 43
10:00 PM 61 84 45 42
11:00 PM 55 72 42 40
GPS Coordinates 36°43'9.23" N
119°43'38.36" W
Appendix D-5
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Wednesday, October 06, 2021
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
.

Hour Leq Lmax L50 L90
12:00 AM 50 73 40 38
1:00 AM 54 84 39 38 High Low Average High Low Average
2:00 AM 51 73 40 39 Leq (Average) 65 59 62 59 49 55
3:00 AM 49 72 41 39 Lmax (Maximum) 84 75 78 84 71 75
4:00 AM 51 71 43 40 L50 (Median) 60 45 50 49 39 43
5:00 AM 55 78 45 43 L90 (Background) 50 37 42 45 38 41
6:00 AM 59 75 49 45
7:00 AM 65 77 60 50 Computed DNL (dB) 63
8:00 AM 62 78 51 44 % Daytime Energy 89%
9:00 AM 61 76 48 44 % Nighttime Energy 11%
10:00 AM 61 83 46 41
11:00 AM 60 76 46 37
12:00 PM 60 75 46 37
1:00 PM 61 84 45 38
2:00 PM 61 79 51 39
3:00 PM 63 82 58 42
4:00 PM 62 79 53 40
5:00 PM 63 76 55 42
6:00 PM 62 81 53 43
7:00 PM 61 75 52 43
8:00 PM 59 79 47 42
9:00 PM 59 75 46 42
10:00 PM 58 76 45 42
11:00 PM 56 73 44 41
GPS Coordinates 36°43'9.23" N
119°43'38.36" W
Appendix D-6
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Thursday, October 07, 2021
Statistical Summary
Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
61 dB
Appendix E-1
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Tuesday, October 05, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
61 dB
Appendix E-2
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Wednesday, October 06, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
52 dB
Appendix E-3
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-1
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Thursday, October 07, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
64 dB
Appendix E-4
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Tuesday, October 05, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
64 dB
Appendix E-5
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Wednesday, October 06, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
63 dB
Appendix E-6
Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results - Site N-2
Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Thursday, October 07, 2021
Computed DNL =
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 11:00 PM Sound Pressure Level, dBA
Time of Day
Average (Leq) Maximum (Lmax) Median (L50) Background (L90)

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 12:00:00 AM12:27:10 AM12:54:20 AM
1:21:30 AM1:48:40 AM2:15:50 AM2:43:00 AM3:10:10 AM3:37:20 AM4:04:30 AM4:31:40 AM4:58:50 AM5:26:00 AM5:53:10 AM6:20:20 AM6:47:30 AM7:14:40 AM7:41:50 AM8:09:00 AM8:36:10 AM9:03:20 AM9:30:30 AM9:57:40 AM 10:24:50 AM10:52:00 AM11:19:10 AM11:46:21 AM
12:13:39 PM12:40:49 PM
1:07:59 PM1:35:09 PM2:02:19 PM2:29:29 PM2:56:39 PM3:23:49 PM3:50:59 PM4:18:09 PM4:45:19 PM5:12:30 PM5:39:40 PM6:06:50 PM6:34:01 PM7:01:11 PM7:28:21 PM7:55:31 PM8:22:41 PM8:49:51 PM9:17:01 PM9:44:11 PM 10:11:22 PM10:38:32 PM11:05:42 PM11:32:52 PM
Measured Vibration Pressure Level, vBA
Time of Day
Appendix F-1
Long-Term Ambient Vibration Measurement Results - Site V-1 Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Tuesday, October 5, 2021
Train Passby

BOLLARD
Acoustical
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 12:00:00 AM12:27:12 AM12:54:23 AM
1:21:34 AM1:48:45 AM2:15:56 AM2:43:07 AM3:10:18 AM3:37:29 AM4:04:40 AM4:31:51 AM4:59:02 AM5:26:13 AM5:53:24 AM6:20:35 AM6:47:46 AM7:14:57 AM7:42:08 AM8:09:19 AM8:36:30 AM9:03:41 AM9:30:52 AM9:58:03 AM 10:25:14 AM10:52:25 AM11:19:36 AM11:46:47 AM
12:13:59 PM12:41:11 PM
1:08:22 PM1:35:33 PM2:02:44 PM2:29:55 PM2:57:06 PM3:24:17 PM3:51:28 PM4:18:39 PM4:45:50 PM5:13:01 PM5:40:12 PM6:07:23 PM6:34:34 PM7:01:45 PM7:28:56 PM7:56:07 PM8:23:18 PM8:50:29 PM9:17:40 PM9:44:51 PM 10:12:02 PM10:39:13 PM11:06:24 PM11:33:35 PM
Measured Vibration Pressure Level, vBA
Time of Day
Appendix F-2
Long-Term Ambient Vibration Measurement Results - Site V-1 Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Wednesday, October 6, 2021
Train Passby Train Passby

BOLLARD
Acoustical
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 12:00:00 AM12:27:11 AM12:54:21 AM
1:21:32 AM1:48:42 AM2:15:52 AM2:43:02 AM3:10:12 AM3:37:23 AM4:04:33 AM4:31:43 AM4:58:53 AM5:26:03 AM5:53:13 AM6:20:23 AM6:47:33 AM7:14:43 AM7:41:53 AM8:09:03 AM8:36:13 AM9:03:23 AM9:30:34 AM9:57:44 AM 10:24:54 AM10:52:04 AM11:19:14 AM11:46:24 AM
12:13:41 PM12:40:51 PM
1:08:01 PM1:35:12 PM2:02:22 PM2:29:32 PM2:56:42 PM3:23:52 PM3:51:02 PM4:18:12 PM4:45:22 PM5:12:32 PM5:39:42 PM6:06:52 PM6:34:02 PM7:01:12 PM7:28:22 PM7:55:32 PM8:22:42 PM8:49:52 PM9:17:02 PM9:44:12 PM 10:11:22 PM10:38:32 PM11:05:42 PM11:32:52 PM
Measured Vibration Pressure Level, vBA
Time of Day
Appendix F-3
Long-Term Ambient Vibration Measurement Results - Site V-1 Autumn Ridge Residential Development - Fresno, California Thursday, October 7, 2021
No Train Passbys

BOLLARD
Acoustical
Future (2042)
8,680
87 13
2 1
40 Soft
Medium Heavy
Location Receiver Description Distance Offset (dB) Autos Trucks Trucks Total Park Neighborhood park 220 54 46 48 55
Backyards 60 62 54 56 64
First-floor building facades 70 61 53 55 63
Upper-floor building facades 70 2 63 55 57 65
DNL Contour, dB
75 70
65 60
Notes:
11 23
50 108

1. Future daily traffic volume (Cumulative Plus Project) for roadway was conservatively estimated by applying a factor of 5 to the sum of AM and PM peak hour conditions obtained from the project traffic impact analysis prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc.

Traffic Data:

Distance from Centerline, (ft)
Year:

Daily Traffic Volume:

Percent Daytime Traffic:

Percent Nighttime Traffic:

Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle):

Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle):

Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph):

Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft):

Traffic Noise Levels:
---------------- DNL (dB) ------------------
Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset):

Residences
(Lots 1-4, 189-199)
Job Number: 2021-154
Project Name: Autumn Ridge Residential Development
Roadway Name: S. Willow Avenue
Appendix G
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
Noise Prediction Worksheet
Project Information:

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
62 54
56 Backyards: Lots 1-4, 189-199
50 10
0 2
8 0
5 0
6 Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos?
Medium
Trucks?
Heavy
Trucks?
6 56 48 51 58 Yes Yes Yes
7 54 47 50 56 Yes Yes Yes
8 53 45 49 55 Yes Yes Yes
9 51 44 47 53 Yes Yes Yes
10 50 43 46 52 Yes Yes Yes
11 49 42 45 51 Yes Yes Yes
12 48 41 44 50 Yes Yes Yes
13 48 40 43 49 Yes Yes Yes
14 47 40 42 49 Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
11 12
13 14

1. Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s).

2. Barrier heights assume that the difference in elevation between the roadway and lots are within +/- 2 feet.

Should a difference greater than +/- 2 feet be present, an additional analysis would be warranted. Nonetheless, the barrier heights are relative to lot or roadway elevation, whichever is greater.

Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to…
6 7
8 9
10 Starting Barrier Height
Barrier Effectiveness:

Top of
Barrier
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
-------------------- DNL (dB) --------------------
Base of Barrier Elevation:

Site Geometry: Receiver Description:

Centerline to Barrier Distance (C1):

Barrier to Receiver Distance (C2):

Automobile Elevation:

Medium Truck Elevation:

Heavy Truck Elevation:

Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver:

Receiver Elevation:

Noise Level Data: Year: Future (2042)
Auto (DNL) dB:

Medium Truck (DNL) dB:

Heavy Truck (DNL) dB:

Project Name: Autumn Ridge Residential Development
Roadway Name: S. Willow Avenue
Appendix H-1
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
Noise Barrier Effectiveness Prediction Worksheet
Project Information: Job Number: 2021-154

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants
61 53
55 1st-Floor Building Facades: Lots 1-4, 189-199
50 20
0 2
8 0
5 0
6 Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos?
Medium
Trucks?
Heavy
Trucks?
6 55 47 50 57 Yes Yes Yes
7 53 46 50 56 Yes Yes Yes
8 52 45 49 54 Yes Yes Yes
9 51 44 48 53 Yes Yes Yes
10 50 43 46 52 Yes Yes Yes
11 49 42 45 51 Yes Yes Yes
12 49 41 45 51 Yes Yes Yes
13 48 40 44 50 Yes Yes Yes
14 47 40 43 49 Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
11 12
13 14

1. Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s).

2. Barrier heights assume that the difference in elevation between the roadway and lots are within +/- 2 feet.

Should a difference greater than +/- 2 feet be present, an additional analysis would be warranted. Nonetheless, the barrier heights are relative to lot or roadway elevation, whichever is greater.

Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to…
6 7
8 9
10 Starting Barrier Height
Barrier Effectiveness:

Top of
Barrier
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
-------------------- DNL (dB) --------------------
Base of Barrier Elevation:

Site Geometry: Receiver Description:

Centerline to Barrier Distance (C1):

Barrier to Receiver Distance (C2):

Automobile Elevation:

Medium Truck Elevation:

Heavy Truck Elevation:

Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver:

Receiver Elevation:

Noise Level Data: Year: Future (2042)
Auto (DNL) dB:

Medium Truck (DNL) dB:

Heavy Truck (DNL) dB:

Project Name: Autumn Ridge Residential Development
Roadway Name: S. Willow Avenue
Appendix H-2
FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
Noise Barrier Effectiveness Prediction Worksheet
Project Information: Job Number: 2021-154

BOLLARD
Acoustical Consultants