Exhibit M
CITY OF FRESNO
PALMS AT ALLUVIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. T-6402/P21-06440/P22-
00795/P21-06515
SEPTEMBER 23 2022
PREPARED FOR:
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
PREPARED BY:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
EST. 19G8
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
CONSULTING GROUP
Table of Contents
September 23, 2022 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Regulatory Information .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Project Title .............................................................................................................. 2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address .............................................................................. 2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number ......................................................................... 2-1 Project Location ....................................................................................................... 2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning ...................................................................... 2-1 Description of Project .............................................................................................. 2-1 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ............................................................ 2-2 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required....................................... 2-2 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ............................................... 2-2 Chapter 3 Determination ........................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Determination .................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-1 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-2 Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 4-3
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................. 4-4 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-4 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................. 4-4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-6
4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 4-9 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 4-9 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-11 Thresholds .............................................................................................................. 4-17 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-18
2.1.1 2.1.2
2.1.3 2.1.4
2.1.5 2.1.6
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9 4.1.1
4.1.2 4.1.3
4.1.4 4.2.1
4.2.2 4.2.3
4.3.1 4.3.2
4.3.3 4.3.4
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 ii
4.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4-20 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-20 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-23 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-26 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-28
4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-29 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-29 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-30 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-34 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-35
4.6 Energy............................................................................................................................................. 4-36 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-36 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-36 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-41
4.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 4-42 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-42 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-44 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-45 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-47
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................. 4-48 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-48 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-49 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-53
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 4-55 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-55 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-56 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-59
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 4-62 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-62 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-63 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-66
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 4-73 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-73 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-73 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-74
4.4.1 4.4.2
4.4.3 4.4.4
4.5.1 4.5.2
4.5.3 4.5.4
4.6.1 4.6.2
4.6.3 4.7.1
4.7.2 4.7.3
4.7.4 4.8.1
4.8.2 4.8.3
4.9.1 4.9.2
4.9.3 4.10.1
4.10.2 4.10.3
4.11.1 4.11.2
4.11.3 Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 iii
4.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4-76 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-76 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-76 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-77
4.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 4-78 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-78 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-78 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-82 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-84
4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................... 4-85 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-85 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-85 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-85
4.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 4-87 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-87 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-87 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-89
4.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 4-91 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-91 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-91 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-91
4.17 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 4-93 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-93 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-93 Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-94
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-96 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 4-96 Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-97 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 4-98 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4-99
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 4-100 Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................. 4-100 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................... 4-101 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-106
4.20 Wildfire ....................................................................................................................................... 4-108
4.12.1 4.12.2
4.12.3 4.13.1
4.13.2 4.13.3
4.13.4 4.14.1
4.14.2 4.14.3
4.15.1 4.15.2
4.15.3 4.16.1
4.16.2 4.16.3
4.17.1 4.17.2
4.17.3 4.18.1
4.18.2 4.18.3
4.18.4 4.19.1
4.19.2 4.19.3
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 iv
Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................. 4-108 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................... 4-108 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4-110
4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 4-111 Statement of Findings .......................................................................................... 4-111 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 References ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files ...........................................................................................................A -1 Appendix B: Biological Evaluation .............................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo ............................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Development Plans ................................................................................................................. E-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location ..................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2: Project Aerial ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2-3: Topographic Map ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map ................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map .......................................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map .................................................................................................................... 4-72
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties .............. 2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts..................................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts .................................................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation .............................. 4-10 Table 4-5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary .............................................................................. 4-11 Table 4-6: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................ 4-16 Table 4-7: Project Comparison to Small Project Analysis Level Threshold ............................................... 4-19 Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-20 Table 4-9. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity ............... 4-22 Table 4-10. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity ................ 4-22 Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-29 Table 4-12: Energy Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 4-36
4.20.1 4.20.2
4.20.3 4.21.1
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 v
Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-42 Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-48 Table 4-15: Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies .................................................... 4-54 Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ............................................................................ 4-55 Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts ................................................................................... 4-62 Table 4-18: Comparison of Water Demand of Existing and Proposed Planned Land Uses....................... 4-67 Table 4-19: Review of Project Water Demand Impacts through 2045 ..................................................... 4-67 Table 4-20: Review of Project Water Demand Impacts during Drought Conditions through 2045 .......... 4-68 Table 4-21: City of Fresno Groundwater Projects .................................................................................... 4-70 Table 4-22: Land Use and Planning Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-73 Table 4-23: Existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning ......................................................................... 4-73 Table 4-24. Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies .................................................... 4-74 Table 4-25: Mineral Resources Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-76 Table 4-26: Noise Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 4-78 Table 4-27: Ground borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria ............................................................... 4-79 Table 4-28: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources ........................................................................ 4-80 Table 4-29: Stationary Noise Sources ....................................................................................................... 4-80 Table 4-30: Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................................ 4-82 Table 4-31: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................................................................... 4-83 Table 4-32: Population and Housing Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-85 Table 4-33: Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 4-87 Table 4-34. Nearby Public Schools ........................................................................................................... 4-90 Table 4-35: Recreation Impacts ................................................................................................................ 4-91 Table 4-36. Planned Park Demand, Existing and Proposed ...................................................................... 4-92 Table 4-37: Transportation Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-93 Table 4-38: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-96 Table 4-39: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts .................................................................................. 4-100 Table 4-40: Wildfire Impacts .................................................................................................................. 4-108 Table 4-41: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................... 4-111 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 5-2
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 vi
ACRONYMS
AAM ......................................................................................................................... Annual arithmetic mean AB ........................................................................................................................................... Assembly Bill ACHP .............................................................................................. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AF ................................................................................................................................................. Acre-feet AF/yr .................................................................................................................................... acre feet per year AFY .................................................................................................................................... acre feet per year AHERA ......................................................................................... Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ALUCP ..................................................................................................... Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APE ........................................................................................................................... Area of Potential Effect APCD ................................................................................................................... Air Pollution Control District AQMD .......................................................................................................... Air Quality Management District AQP ....................................................................................................................................... Air Quality Plan ATP ...................................................................................................................... Active Transportation Plan CAA ............................................................................................................................................Clean Air Act CAAQS ............................................................................................. California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod ........................................................................... California Emissions Estimator Model (software) CalEPA ....................................................................................... California Environmental Protection Agency CAFE .......................................................................................................... Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAL FIRE ..................................................................... California Department Of Forestry And Fire Protection CalGreen .......................................................................................................California’s Green Building Code Cal/OSHA .............................................................. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle ........................................................California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CARB ................................................................................................................ California Air Resources Board CBC .......................................................................................................................... California Building Code CCAA ........................................................................................................................... California Clean Air Act CCR ................................................................................................................ California Code of Regulations CDFW............................................................................................ California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDHP ................................................................................................. California Department of Public Health CEC ................................................................................................................ California Energy Commission CESA .......................................................................................................... California Endangered Species Act CFC ............................................................................................................................... Chlorofluorocarbons
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 vii
CFR ................................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations CH4 ................................................................................................................................................. Methane CHL ................................................................................................................ California Historical Landmark CHRIS .............................................................................. California Historical Resources Information System City .......................................................................................................................................... City of Fresno CLG .................................................................................................................... Certified Local Government CNDDB .................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CNEL ......................................................................................................... Community Noise Equivalent Level CO ....................................................................................................................................Carbon monoxide CO2 ........................................................................................................................................ Carbon dioxide CO2e ..................................................................................................................... carbon dioxide-equivalents COG ......................................................................................................................... Council of Governments Cortese ....................................................................................... Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List CPHI .................................................................................................... California Points of Historical Interest CRHR ............................................................................................. California Register of Historical Resources CTS .................................................................................................................... California Tiger Salamander CUP ........................................................................................................................... Conditional Use Permit CUSD .................................................................................................................. Clovis Unified School District CWA ...................................................................................................................................... Clean Water Act dB ................................................................................................................................................... decibels dBA ................................................................................................................................ A-weighted decibels DOC .................................................................................................. California Department of Conservation DOT ................................................................................................................ Department of Transportation DPU ................................................................................................................. Department of Public Utilities DTSC ............................................................................................... Department of Toxic Substances Control EAP .................................................................................................................................. Energy Action Plan EE ..................................................................................................................... Energy Efficiency Programs EFZ .......................................................................................................................... Earthquake Fault Zones EIR ................................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Report EO ...................................................................................................................................... Executive Order EPA .................................................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA .......................................................................................................................... Endangered Species Act FEMA ............................................................................................. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 viii
FGC ............................................................................................................................... Fish and Game Code FMFCD ......................................................................................... Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District FMC ........................................................................................................................... Fresno Municipal Code FMMP ....................................................................................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPPA ............................................................................................................... Farmland Protection Policy Act Fresno COG ...................................................................................................Fresno Council of Govern ments FTA ................................................................................................................Federal Transit Administration GC ................................................................................................................................... Government Code GHG ...................................................................................................................................... Greenhouse Gas GIS ............................................................................................................. Geographic Information System GP ............................................................................................................................................ General Plan GPA ....................................................................................................................... General Plan Amendment GP PEIR ................................................................................................................... General Plan Program EIR GSA ........................................................................................................ Groundwater Sustainability Agency GWP ....................................................................................................................... Global Warming Potential HAPs ......................................................................................................................... Hazardous Air Pollutants HHDT ......................................................................................................................... Heavy-heavy duty truck HSC ........................................................................................................................... Health and Safety Code HUC ................................................................................................................................ Hydrolgic Unit Code IS ............................................................................................................................................. Initial Study IS/MND ...................................................................................... Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ITP ............................................................................................................................ Incidental Take Permit IWMP ................................................................................................... Integrated Waste Management Plans Ldn .................................................................................................................................................................................... Day-Night Average Sound Level km ............................................................................................................................................... kilometers MBTA ........................................................................................................................ Migratory Bird Treat Act MCL ................................................................................................................. maximum contaminant levels MGD ............................................................................................................................ million gallons per day MLD .......................................................................................................................... Most Likely Descendant MMRP .................................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND .............................................................................................................. Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ ........................................................................................................................... Mineral Resource Zone MTCO2e .......................................................................................... Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 ix
N2O ........................................................................................................................................... Nitrous oxide NAAQS .............................................................................................. National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC ................................................................................................. Native American Heritage Commission ND ...............................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NEHRP ............................................................................... National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NEHRPA ....................................................................... National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act NHPA ......................................................................................................... National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA ........................................................................... National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration NOX ....................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen oxides NPDES ................................................................................. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS .............................................................................................................................. National Park Service NRHP ....................................................................................................... National Register of Historic Places O3 ...................................................................................................................................................... Ozone OHP ................................................................................................ California Office of Historic Preservation OITC ........................................................................................................ Outdoor/Indoor Transmission Class PG&E .......................................................................................................... Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM10 ..................................................................................................... particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ................................................................................................... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb ....................................................................................................................................... parts per billion ppm ...................................................................................................................................... parts per million Project ................................................................................................................................... Palms at Alluvial PRC ............................................................................................................................ Public Resources Code ROG ............................................................................................................................ Reactive organic gases RTP ................................................................................................................... Regional Transporation Plan RWRF ............................................................................................ Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility RWQCB ................................................................................................ Regional Water Quality Control Board SAFE .......................................................................................... Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule SARA-III .......................................... Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB ............................................................................................................................................... Senate Bill SCS ......................................................................................................... Sustainable Communities Strategy SDC ...................................................................................................................... a Seismic Design Category SDWA ........................................................................................................................ Safe Drinking Water Act SGMA.......................................................................................... Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Table of Contents
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 x
SHMP ................................................................................... State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan SIP ..................................................................................................................... State Implementation Plan SJVAB ................................................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD ............................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SJV Basin ............................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin SLF ..................................................................................................................................... Sacred Lands File SO2 .......................................................................................................................................... Sulfur dioxide SPAL .................................................................................................................... Small Project Analysis Level SR ............................................................................................................................................. State Route SRA ........................................................................................................................ State Responsibility Area SSJVIC ................................................................................. Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center STC ....................................................................................................................... Sound Transmission Class SWPPP ............................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ................................................................................................. State Water Resources Control Board TAC ............................................................................................................................. Toxic Air Contaminant TIP ................................................................................................... Transportation Improvement Program TSCA .................................................................................................................. Toxic Substances Control Act USACE ................................................................................................ United States Army Corps of Engineers USC ................................................................................................................................. United States Code USDA .............................................................................................. United States Department of Agriculture USFWS ................................................................................................ United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................................................................................. United States Geological Survey UST ................................................................................................................... Underground Storage Tanks UWMP .......................................................................................................... Urban Water Management Plan μg/m3.................................................................................................................. micrograms per cubic meter VdB .......................................................................................................................vibration velocity decibels VMT ............................................................................................................................ Vehicle Miles Traveled ZEV ............................................................................................................................ Zero Emissions Vehicle
Chapter 1: Introduction
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Fresno to address the environmental effects of the Palms at Alluvial Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq. The City of Fresno is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.
The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.
1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. )-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines --Section 15064 (a)(1) stat es that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigatio n measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant b efore the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before t he agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description , provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the
Chapter 1: Introduction
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.
The CalEEMod Output Files , Biological Resources Information, Cultural Resources Information , Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo , and Development Plans are provided as technical Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files, Appendix B: Biological Evaluation, Appendix C: Cultural Resources, Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo, and Appendix E: Development Plans, respectively, at the end of this document.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Palms at Alluvial
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Robert Holt
Planner III
(559) 621-8277
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jeff O’Neal, Environmental Project Manager
(559) 449-2700
Project Location
The Project is located in Fresno, California, approximately 150 miles southeast of Sacramento and 150 miles northwest of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1). The Project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 404-500- 29 on the north side of E. Alluvial Avenue approximately 650 feet west of N. Willow Avenue. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 50’ 45.36” N, 119° 43’ 56.41” W.
General Plan Designation and Zoning
Project Area General Plan Designation Zoning District
ONSITE Low-Density Residential RS-3 (Residential Single-Family, Low Density)
Description of Project
The Project proposes the development of 28 dwellings on an approximately 3.06-acre parcel. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA), a Rezone, a Tentative Tract Map, a Planned Development, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The GPA proposes to change the site’s planned land use from Low Density
2.1.1 2.1.2
2.1.3 2.1.4
2.1.5 2.1.6
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-2
Residential (1-3.5 du/ac) to Medium Density Residential (5-12 du/ac). The Rezone would change the site’s existing zoning from RS-3 (Residential, Single -Family, Low Density) to RS -5 (Residential, Single -Family, Medium Density). The CUP would allow the proposed 28 -unit multi-family development within the RS -5 Zone District. The Tentative Tract Map would subdivide the property into 14 duplex lo ts and 1 common area lot. A Planned Development Permit would allow for private gates and streets, and reduced setbacks.
The relevant entitlements for the Project are as follows:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6402
• Plan Amendment-Rezone Application No. P21-06440
• Planned Development Permit Application No. P22-00795
• Conditional Use Permit No. P21-06515
Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction
from Project
Site
Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District
NORTH Single-Family Residential Medium Low Density Residential RS-4/UGM (Residential, Single-Family, Medium Low Density/Urban Growth
Management)
EAST Apartment complex Medium High Density Residential RM-1/UGM/cz (Residential Multi- Family, Medium High Density/Urban
Growth Management/conditions of
zoning)
Single-Family Residential Medium Density Residential RS-5 (Residential, Single-Family, Medium Density)
SOUTH Rural Residential Low Density Residential Rural Residential (Fresno County) WEST Hospice Facility Low Density Residential RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family, Low Density)
Single-Family Residential Medium Low Density Residential RS-4(Residential, Single-Family, Medium Low Density)
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Fresno Irrigation District
State Water Resources Control Board
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9 Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-3
objects with c ultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA proc ess allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environme ntal review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah were invited to consult under AB 52. The City of Fresno mailed notices of the P roject to each of these tribes on June 22, 2022 which included the required 30 -day time period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on September 23, 2022. No tribes elected to consult on the Project.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on June 22, 2022 which included the required 90 -day time period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on September 23, 2022.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-4
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
T T
\< - ^\
/
/
/<>/**V
t
/
> Auberry
o'
i
\
/
f
j
Friant///
Bonadelle
Ranchos-
Madera Ranchos
l
uParksdale 1
✓Madera
/
/Rolling /
Hills
-i
Project Sii
»Mader?
Co.
Fresno
Co- Clovis
Biola
Fresno
/ Centerville
West
Park
T
Malaga
☆
Easton
Fowler
Fresno Co.'
I--------- BowlesI County
City Limits (various colors)
Census Place
* ' ^
Monmouth Selmaj
<&■
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
2 4
Miles
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-1
Figure 2-2: Project Aerial
Vj U1-
Q) mU .IS>
Y*
' ■> 'i 5 „o
Imty ar . IL r
£:
”,
1 :■17 i
E I
#
<fI
H i
l»i
T*>•*< u yT
Qfl
f •?lr
n
! ,1 |
CD4 **Ad
•) |§‘*'3
*»^r
a i4SI k£zF 31i*
I .1*
•*jSl
«l>
SSsSQB 'll
jft ^ iaw 4
i
Alluvial Ave
I
l ^
»
l 2
i. ■ t
I
*
k?C;
< 1 • *—Wi1
>
* .T*
►A
» Ea
LUl i.U.. I 1 1
ii
f *
i
jProject Site (3.1 Acres)
HJ
<&'
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
150 300
]
Feet
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-1
Figure 2-3: Topographic Map
■fl
36 E ALLUVIAL AVE ALLUVIAL AVE
-
•i
P
jl
I /
T12S.R20E
..T13SR20E* ranch Helm Colonial Ditchj
t t<|fMOA/r AVC;
01 | | Project Site (3.1 Acres)
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)
Quad Name
I I
T BOllAJHttVF
Township/Range
Section
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
750 1,500
Feet
P
5 i
N>
m z*
r
O
\_5.<y
c
o
u
VIUA 4/f
■
UJ
m
MM-
> rsj
r OC
'
rsj
cc5
lS) V-
fN8mfth Halm Colon,at 0,^1PEACH AVEl M &5 I 1,
I-
H
Jta
s ')-
Is
-r
£
W WW A/ '»*•
■5 IS5
r'"x
u:•
£ *1'! 3
“
rt>
5N WILLOW AVE
rsj
rs
o
fN
■<
e
rcC
CT
<Q~n
T3
<u
VI
ro
0>
QJ
no
O
Q.
03 A
no
co ? *
ino
On
C
TIMMY. AVE
o
C.ATf WAV AW
I PIERCE AVE
CUJ
0 3 \N 11TH ST
i^SAYNOf^Sr
n i
o Cn
5*:03 1
oo ajtN£
rg >2t.
ocr-•o ■■
no
N MINNEWAWA AV%
rD
oa*
un
on-<
QJ
5 |
a;
£
XrB
O
T3
CLQJ
hi PEACH AVE in
cri
s oIs!' cr.
J
QJ
>a>
UJ5
<>
QJi
Os
j CL
hi Billow Avi
i ’1 hi ANN A VJJ
1 * B
C
■=:
2 1*
,s
> !
X
lT>NJ
to
Teaque bitch
Sl S' o
iisvs? 5it
1>
.t,
2 -V:
S 5
b- l
%4
X
35 I
Z "
ro
i-
i-
QX
O'
13 N CEDAR AVE
•r
A
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-1
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
I-----------
z
4 1~TT
.
2 co
CD
C o
>s
C: Lai
i
*
:
i#
:
'
i-
i (
i , ^
L
J
I
I Alluvial Avel
TTJ- ^ 4TP- A
i
50?*
SSI
£
it
i
J <£
| | Project Site (3.1 Acres) <
1 iCity of Fresno General Plan
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
I Community
Ponding Basin
I Church
I
I
I
i
i
i
1 4— I
I 4MiI
I
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
150 300
Feet
Chapter 2: Project Description
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 2-2
Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
; r-
H 1
CT
SJE* ill ri-.r.
«*«* Iiiiii uir togrM----'4 >l •'■s»Lkb,
*<oj
JTf Coo t®5QJ
uuJ
mST5 K o o
>.| i g|
u GI*! )
Ai-jTlJ
5V Ir
-
-{
i____►
}.td-
\ ■
♦
-
_
n i i i u j i nrf Ii . m lm•Tt
*
e* 0 j____j.TJ
ill Jr^
I
I
I
It
9£$j i*i, Alluvial Avei i
i
s
I
frol
I I Project Site (3.1 Acres)
Fresno City Zoning
Commercial Community
Open Space
Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density
Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density
Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density
Residential Single-Family, Low Density
I I Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density
Residential Single-Family, Medium Density
Fresno County Zoning
Limited Agriculture
/)/)//) Rural Residential
I
KS-S V
hmr.V
l l l2r
i [ClL,I
I
I
I
I V)
I
it
I
__________
♦ m
I
!L_
4) ■
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
ISO 300
Feet
Date Exported: 6/24/2022 10:S8 \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Stallion Development_XXXX\400 GIS\Map\Stallion_Palms_CEQA\Stallion_Palms_CEQA.aprx Chapter 3: Determination
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION
3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are. checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project . Mitigation me asures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.
Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an eff ect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less t han Significant Impact.” For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the G eneral Plan P rogram EIR (GP PEIR) and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained □□ □
□ ED □□□□
□ ski n^nn
Chapter 3: Determination
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 3-2
where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. , the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made b y or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an d an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact o n the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
_______________________________________ ___09/23/2022_________________ Signature Date
Robert Holt, Planner III
□
El
□
□
□
i
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Baseline Conditions
Scenic vistas are areas that are considered to be a viewpoint, either naturally occurring or man-made, that would be pleasing to the general public and as a result provides a benefit to the area. Within the Fresno area, scenic vistas include points along the San Joaquin River, views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, views of the downtown Fresno skyline, and historic buildings, many of which are located downtown. Such resources provide a visual benefit to those who have access to them. The Project site is a vacant lot in northeast Fresno largely surrounded by a bloc k wall separating it from existing development to all sides with the exception of the hospice facility . The Project site fronts E. Alluvial Avenue to the south and is approximately 650 feet west of N. Willow Avenue; neither street is a scenic corridor. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 35 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project site is undeveloped and is surrounded single- and multifamily dwellings and a hospice facility. There are no historic buildings located on or near the Project site. □ □ □
□ n n
□ □ □
□ n n
4.1.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-2
Applicable Regulations
There are no regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with aesthetics that are applicable to the Project.
Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project is located in an urbanized environment surrounded by existing residential uses and a hospice facility. The Project would not obstruct any scenic views as none presently exist. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway. The Project site does not contain any scenic resources, nor are there any scenic resources within proximity. The Project would not result in any destruction of scenic resources. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located in the City of Fresno, an urbanized area. The architectural renderings, elevations, and color schemes would be developed in a manner not to degrade the existing visual character. The development would comply with the requirements of the RS -5 zone district, which contains provisions related to massing (i.e ., building height and lot cove rage) but none specific to scenic quality. The existing block wall surrounding most of the parcel would remain. Along the west side of the Project Site abutting the hospice facility (where no wall exists), a seven-foot tall split-face block wall would be constructed consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC). Although the proposed reduction to required setbacks would result in buildings situated closer together and could therefore potentially block views, the lack of any scenic vistas of importance indicates that impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . Development of th e site will create a new source of light or glare within the area, consisting of building-attached (e.g., porch lights, patio lights) and parking area lighting. However, the Project site is surrounded by existing urban development that already affects daytime and nighttime views in the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, a requirement to direct lighting to parking areas and away from adjacent residential land uses, will ensure that impacts are less than significant.
4.1.2 4.1.3
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-3
Mitigation
AES-1 Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.
4.1.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-4
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site consists of vacant graded land that is not in agricultural production and is not under Williamson Act contract.
Based upon the upon the 2018 Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of the State of California Department of Conservation designates the project site as Rural Residential.1 (see Figure 4-1).
Applicable Regulations
Federal
T
he Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA): The FPPA was enacted to minimize the impact of federal programs on the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non -a
gricultural uses. To the extent possible, the
FPPA ensures that federal programs are administered to be consistent with state and local regulations to
1 (Calfornia Department of Conservation 2019)
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
4.2.1 4.2.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-5
protect farmland. This act does not authorize the federal government to regulate the use of private or non- federal land. For the purposes of the FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance.
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP): The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.
The California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) 2018 FMMP is a non-regulatory program that produces "Important Farmland" maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture - related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land – rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each applicable category is summarized below:
• FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE (L): Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • OTHER LAND (X): Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act): The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has acted as the State’s agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965. Fundamentally, the Williamson Act is a State policy administered by local governments, who enter into agreements with local landowners. In return, the landowners receive property tax assessments based on farming and open space uses, as opposed to full market value, thus resulting in a lower tax burden. Local governments are not mandated to administer the Act, but those that do have some latitude to tailor the program to suit local goals and objectives. The purpose of the Williamson Act is to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. In general, the minimum preserve size is 100 acres, and the minimum standard contract size for the county of Fresno is 20 acres on Prime Farmland and 40 acres on non- prime farmland within a preserve. The Willia mson Act has a minimum contract size of 10 acres. Williamson Act contracts have a minimum term of 10 years, with renewal occurring automatically each year (local governments can establish initial contract terms for longer periods of time). The Williamson Act contracts run with the land and are binding on all successors in interest of the landowner. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible for Williamson Act contracts. An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county can enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board of supervisors or city council having jurisdiction. The rules of each agricultural preserve specify the uses allowed. Generally, any commercial agricultural uses would be permitted within any agricultural preserve. In addition, local governments may identify compatible uses allowed with a use permit. The landowner can petition to cancel a contract, although the presiding jurisdiction must make a finding based on substantial evidence that supports the cancellation of the contract ; either party to a
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-6
contract may unilaterally choose to non-renew the contract, which results in a cessation of the automatic renewal. The contract then expires without further action once the remaining years have elapsed.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the city. The following objective and policies related to agricultural resources are presented in the General Plan:
• Objective RC-9. Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.
• Policy RC-9-a. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other agencies to conserve agricultural land resources. • Policy RC -9-b. Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or • Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat). • Policy RC -9-c. Farmland Preservation Program . In Coordination with regional partners or independently, est ablish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisiti on, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.
Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, the subject property is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; therefore, the Project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be no impact.
4.2.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-7
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The subject property is not zoned for agricultural use, and it is not subject to a Williamson Act agricultural land conservation contract. Therefore, the Project will not affect existing agriculturally-zoned or Williamson Act contract parcels. There would be no impact. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cau se rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project is not within the vicinity of a forest as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). According to the City of Fresno General Plan, the Planning Area does not include any land used or designated for timber, forest land, or timber harvesting industry. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land. There would be no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As discussed above in Impact Assessment “c”, the Project is not within the vicinity of a forest as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code [GC] section 51104(g)). According to the City of Fresno General Plan, the Planning Area does not include any land used o r designated for timber, forest land, or timber harvesting industry. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project consists of urban development on land substantially surrounded by existing urban development. The Project would not involve additional changes to the existing environment that would change the nature of or location such that it would lead to conversion of farmlands to non- agricultural uses. Furthermore, the Project would not convert forest lands to non-forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-8
Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
4~> a) I>
IP-1
i b
*x o
t,CE
S_JT S■s*. 1 v.
ocii
. m>
il _ •iilhi '■T?
•' v c •» jjr
J-J3L
(
jga
a V'Jftz i i
E-fir ;tu •
Piif £im *1
A
34 !^t-*i
• - i m'•* ?- i
11 Yi
t i ■r
i
Sft 3;
Alluvial Ave
y*? K»B«a ij» V■ %
■SR Rfevj
~yg* mril- --•
V*
a**
\ »,y
Io*
Vpi K_____________________
□ Project Site (3.1 Acres)
Farmland Designation
Farmland of Local Importance
Rural Residential
] <■
V
;■/!
.ciyTjm_____:r!
Urban and Built-Up Land
&■
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
150 300
Feet
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-9
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Baseline Conditions
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resource Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) designates areas for ozone, Carbon Monoxide ( CO), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2) as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifie d is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub- categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM 10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM 10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
The State and national attainment status designations pertaining to the SJVAB are summarized in Table 4-4 SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State PM10 standard, ozone, and □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.3.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-10
PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA re-designated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment status for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe – No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3
Nonattainment
–
Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm
Attainment
53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM –
Attainment
--
Attainment/
Unclassified
24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb)
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment
–
No Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – --
Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3) Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl) 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3) Attainment
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction
coefficient:
0.23/km-visibility
of 10 miles or more
due to particles
when the relative
humidity is less
than 70%.
Unclassified
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-11
Criteria Pollutants
California’s ambient air monitoring network is one of the most extensive in the world, with more than 250 sites and 700 individual monitors measuring air pollutant levels across a diverse range of topography, meteorology, emissions, and air quality. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the Project are best documented by measurements made by these monitoring sites. The nearest monitoring site to the Project is located a t the Fresno-Garland Monitoring Station at 3727 North First Street in Fresno, CA.
The site measures O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Data presented in Table 4-5 summarize monitoring data from the CARB’s Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System for the Fresno -Garland Monitoring Station location published from 2018 to 2020.
Table 4-5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3)
1-hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.121 0.105 0.119
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 2 0
8-hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) .099 .084 .099
Days > State Standard (0.070 ppm) 38 18 1
Days > National Standard (0.070 ppm) 36 17 1
Inhalable
coarse particles
(PM10)
Annual State Annual Average (µg/m3) 40.6 35.9 1
24-hour
National 24 Hour (µg/m3) 298.4 174.2 211.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 130.4 328.2 296.0
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 3 13
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual National Annual Average (µg/m3)1 16.6 11.2 19.8
24-hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 95.7 51.3 171.8
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 36 10 1
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) 1-hour 1 Hour (ppm) 2.1 1.9 5.0
8-hour 8 Hour (ppm) 2.0 1.5 2.5
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 24-hour 24 Hour (ppm) .0072 .0089 .0162
Applicable Regulations
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The Clean Air Act (CAA), first adopted in 1967 and periodically amended since then, established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the CAA sets a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. The other CAA Amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments.
CAA and the NAAQS identify levels of air quality for six “criteria” pollutants, which a re considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO 2, SO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and Pb.
Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non- health-related adverse effects such as visibility restrictions.
4.3.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-12
The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality contro l plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.
The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates o f the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.
CAA Section 176(c) (42 USC 7506(c)) and EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be demonstrated to conform to the SIP before the RTP and TIP are approved by the metropolitan planning organization, in this case the Fresno Council of Governments, or accepted by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. However, because the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for CO, PM
10, PM2.5 and ozone address attainment of both the State and federal standards for these pollutants, demonstrating conformity to the federal standards is also an indication of progress toward attainment of the State standards. Compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) is provided on the pages following this federal conformity discussion.
The EPA approved San Joaquin Valley reclassification of the ozone (8 -hour) designation to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, eve n though the San Joaquin Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In accordance with the CAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. In the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary standard to 0.070 ppm to pro vide increased public health protection against health effects associated with long - and short-term exposures. The previous ozone standard was set in 2010 at 0.075 ppm.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act first authorized the EPA to regulate asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings under Title II of the law, which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). AHERA requires Local Education Agencies to inspect their schools for Asbestos - Containing Building Materials and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
These are technology -based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
State
California Air Resources Board and the California Clean Air Act The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation called the California Clean Air Act
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-13
(CCAA), adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.
CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. Whereas CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP to the EPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer prod ucts set by the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and approved by CARB.
The SJVAPCD is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplis h a five percent annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the CAAQS.
States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established the CAAQS pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.
HSC Section 39608 requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the state on a pollutant- by- pollutant basis. Subsequently, the CARB designated areas in California as nonattain ment based on violations of the CAAQS. Designations and classifications specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the state were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems.
For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted.
For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five percent- per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged ev ery consecutive three- year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.
Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality. CARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, a network of sampling stations (called the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations Network), which monitors the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.
All of Fresno County, including the incorporated area of the City of Fresno , is in the SJVAB.
Table 4 -5
contains a summary of State and federal air quality standards and the SJVABs attainment status for common pollutants.
California Air Resource Board Mobile-Source Regulation
CARB is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARB’s motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, CARB has adopted regulations that require auto manufacturers to phase in less-polluting vehicles.
The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the State ’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CAAQS, established pursuant to HSC Section 39606(b), are similar to, but more stringent than, the NAAQS.
Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 – Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates toxic air contaminants (TACs) primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-14
formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as a TAC. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TACs. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. CARB list of TACs is provided below:
• Benzene
• Ethylene Dibromide
• Ethylene Dichloride
• Hexavalent chromium
• Asbestos
• Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans
• Cadmium
• Carbon Tetrachloride
• Ethylene Oxide
• Methylene Chloride
• Trichloroethylene
• Chloroform
• Vinyl chloride
• Inorganic Arsenic
• Nickel
• Perchloroethylene
• Formaldehyde
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Inorganic Lead
• Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines
• Environmental Tobacco Smoke
• EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants (187)
If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions.
California Assembly Bill 170
AB 170 was adopted in 2003 creating GC Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies , and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.
State Tailpipe Emission Standards
To reduce emissions from off -road diesel equipment, on -road diesel trucks, and harbor craft, CARB established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, tugboats, and barges, would be required to comply with the standards.
Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emiss ions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within the County and throughout the SJVAB. The District also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits for source emissions. CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions ; the District is precluded from such activities under State law.
The District was formed in mid-1991 and prepared and adopted the San Joaquin Valley AQAP, dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the CCAA. The CCAA requires each non-attainment district to reduce pertinent air contaminants by at least five percent (5%) per year until new, more stringent, 1988 State air quality standards are met.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-15
Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources o f air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the CAA and the CCAA.
The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2013 Ozone Plan to achieve fe deral and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone. It provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive -based measures to reduce emissions of ozone and particulate matter precursors throughout the SJVAB, and calls for major advancements in pollution control technologies for mobile and stationary sources of air pollution, a 75 -percent reduction in ozone -forming oxides of nitrogen emissions, and addresses the remaining requirement under the 1979 revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA in 2006 issued a Final Rule determining that the Basin had attained the NAAQS for PM 10, it did
however note that the Final Rule did not constitute a redesignation to attainment until all of the CAA requirements under Section 107(d)(3) were met. In response, the SJVAPCD prepared the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (2007 PM 10 Plan). The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce PM2.5.
The Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts 2015) is an advisory document that provides lead agencies , consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. It describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents and recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.
The SJVAPCD documents identified above represent SJVAPCD’s plan to achieve both State and federal air quality standards. The regulations and incentives contained in these documents must be legally enforceable and permanent. These plans separate emissions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories. The SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations applicable to the Project include, but are not limited to:
• Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), Regulation VIII (Rules 8011 -8081): This regulation is a series of rules des igned to reduce particulate emissions generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, carryout and trackout, use of paved and unpaved roads and traffic areas, bulk material handling and storage, open space areas, etc. If a non-residential area is five or more acres in size, a Dust Control Plan must be submitted as specified in Section 6.3.1 of Rule 8021. Additional requirements may apply, depending on total area of disturbance. • Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities: District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non -residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The Project will meet these criteria and will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District in order to comply with this rule. • Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review : Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, fulfills the SJVAPCD emission reduction commitments in the PM 10 and Ozone Attainment Plans through emission reductions associated with construction and operational activities for projects subject to the rule.
Since the project contains more than 20,000 square feet of recreational space it will be required
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-16
to comply with Rule 9510. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, although the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts. • Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations : If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the Project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt, and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
• Regulatory Attainment Designations: Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation s ignifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO 2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extre me. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM 10 based on the likelihood that
they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the national 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
Table 4 -6 shows the SJVAPCD thresholds of significan ce for both construction - and operation -related emissions from a given project.
Table 4-6: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/year)
Pollutant Construction Emissions Operation Emissions
ROG 10 10
NOx 10 10
CO 100 100
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-17
City of Fresno General Plan
The General Plan lists the following policies that are supportive of improved air quality:
• Objective RC-4. In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
• RC-4-a Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan. • RC-4-b Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
• RC-4-c Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
• RC-4-d Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts. • RC-4-k Electric Vehicle Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric vehicle charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes more widespread.
1. The idling time of all construction equipment used in the plan area shall not exceed ten minutes when practicable.
2. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment shall be minimized when practicable.
3. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accord with manufacturer’s specifications when practicable.
4. When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical construction equipment shall be used at the Project site.
5. The minimum practical engine size for construction equipment shall be used when practicable.
6. When feasible, electric carts or other smaller equipment shall be used at the project site.
7. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic converters when practicable.
Thresholds
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the SJVAPCD has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short-term construction, long-term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the SJVAPCD -recommended thresholds of significance are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to human health and welf are. The thresholds of significance are summarized, as follows:
Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM
10): Construction impacts associated with the
proposed Project would be considered significant if the feasible control measures for construction i n
4.3.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-18
compliance with Regulation VIII as listed in the SJVAPCD guidelines are not incorporated or implemented, or if project-generated emissions would exceed 15 tons per year (TPY).
Short-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or NO
X that exceeds 10 TPY.
Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM 10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of PM 10 that exceed 15 TPY.
Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of ROG or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan : Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) or PM10 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, the project may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.
Local Mobile-Source Carbon monoxide (CO) Concentrations: Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the CAAQS (i.e., 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour).
Toxic Air Contaminants : Exposure to toxic air contaminants would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 20 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.
Odors: Odor impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact . CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. For a project to be consistent with SJV APCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would further reduce construction dust impacts.
Operational emissions associated with the project would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for ROG, NO
x, CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. The Project does not exceed the minimum dwelling unit count (50) to be subject to Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. Therefore, the
4.3.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-19
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The SJVAPCD has streamlined the process of assessing significance of criteria pollutant emissions from commonly encountered projects by developing a screening tool, Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). Using project type and size, the District has pre- quantified emissions and determined a size below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. The information is provided in terms of vehicle trips required to exceed the SPAL threshold for f ive general land use categories , each with numerous sub- classes. The Project is assessed under Residential – Apartment, Low Rise, which has thresholds of 224 dwelling units, 800 daily automobile trips, and 15 daily heavy duty truck trips.
Table 4-7 illustrates the
Project characteristics alongside the SPAL thresholds.
Table 4-7: Project Comparison to Small Project Analysis Level Threshold Dwelling
Units
Average Daily One-Way Trips
Non-HHDT HHDT
Project 28 168 <4
SPAL 224 800 15
Because the Project falls beneath the thresholds established under SPAL, impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, residences, parks, playgrounds, childcare facilities, nursing homes, schools, and healthcare facilities. The Project site is immediately surrounded by sensitive residential receptors and the Willow Creek healthcare center located approximately 1,400 feet east of the Project site . The Project would generate diesel particulate matter during construction and during Project operations when solid waste is being collected from the site. The majority of diesel particulate matter emissions would occur during construction. However, due to the small size of the Project, construction length is expected to be minimal and consequently diesel particulate matter emissions would not be substantial. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roaster, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants, among other uses. The Project does not include any of these activities or land uses. The Project would therefore have no impact with respect to generation of emissions leading to odors or other adverse or objectionable emissions.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-20
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Baseline Conditions
General
The topography of the Project site is relatively flat across the San Joaquin Valley Floor and the area of potential effect (APE) is situated at approximately 300 feet in elevation in an urbanized area within the City of Fresno. The entire APE lies on a dirt lot adjacent to a pre -existing parking lot and residential neighborhoods. The existing roadway adjacent to the APE is paved.
Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and □ □ □
n □ □
n □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.4.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-21
the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and April.
Waters
A watershed is the topographic region that drains into a stream, river, or lake and can consist of many smaller subwatersheds. The APE lies within the James Bypass watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC):
1803000907 and the Gates Lake subwatershed; HUC: 180300090701. The James Bypass watershed comprises upland areas that flow into Tollhouse Creek, Sand Creek, North Fork Willow Creek, North Fork Little Dry Creek, and Little Dry Creek, which all run into Dry Creek. Dry Creek then flows into an underground pipeline. The nearest surface water is a detention basin approximately 650 feet west of the APE.
Soils
One soil mapping unit representing a singular soil type was identified within the APE. Hanford fine sandy loam, clay loam substratum is found within 100 percent of the APE. It is well drained, has moderately rapid permeability and very low runoff. This soil is primarily used for agriculture, dairies, and urban development.
None of the major or minor soil mapping units were identified as hydric. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.
The full soil report can be found in Attachment D in
Appendix B at the end of this document.
Wildlife and Plan Species
A thorough search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) Information for Planning, Consultation (IPaC), and iNaturalist were conducted to identify potential special status plant and animal species that may be found in and around the APE. The CNDDB search included the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) areas encompassing the Clovis 7.5-minute quadrangle that contains the APE in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles: Lanes Bridge , Friant, Academy, Round Mountain , Sanger, Malaga, Fresno South, and Fresno North. The full CNDDB and IPaC species list can be found in Attachment B and Attachment C in
Appendix B. No field survey was conducted. Viewing of the APE was achieved utilizing satellite imagery.
The CNDDB identified 35 special status animal species and 16 special status plant species within the nine - quad search. Species historically found within three miles of the APE includes seven species which are explained further in Table 4 -9 and Table 4 -10 below. This list excludes observations with unknown occurrence locations that were mapped to the center of Fresno as a best guess by CNDDB.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-22
Table 4-9. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on APE
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT, CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small
mammal burrows for aestivation.
Generally found in grassland and
oak savannah plant communities in
central California from sea level to
1500 feet in elevation.
Absent. Suitable vernal pool and upland habitat
for this species is absent from the APE. Both
recorded observations within three miles of the
APE are considered to be extirpated.
Monarch
butterfly
(Danaus
plexippus)
FC
Winter roost sites extend along the
coast from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico. Roosts
located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby.
Unlikely. Overwintering roost sites are absent
from the APE. Marginal vegetation is present and
would not provide optimal foraging habitat. There
are no recorded observations within the nine
quad search and the closest observation on
iNaturalist was approximately five miles away.
Tricolored
blackbird
(Agelaius
tricolor)
CT, CSC
Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets
of riparian shrubs. Forages in
grassland and cropland. Large
colonies are often found on dairy
farm forage fields.
Absent. Suitable wetland habitat is absent from
the APE and surrounding area. Nesting and
foraging would not be supported.
Western pond
turtle (Emys
marmorata)
CSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate
basking sites and sandy banks or
grassy open fields to deposit eggs.
Unlikely. Nesting and foraging habitat is absent
from the APE. The nearest surface waters is a
detention basin approximately 650 feet west.
Nesting and foraging habitat is fragmented and
likely would not support this species.
Table 4-10. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on APE
San Joaquin
Valley Orcutt
grass (Orcuttia
inaequalis)
FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the eastern San Joaquin
Valley and the Sierra Nevada
foothills in vernal pools within valley
grassland, freshwater wetland, and
wetland-riparian communities at
elevations below 2600 feet. Blooms
April – September.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soil for the species is
absent from the APE. The only recorded
occurrence of this species in the area is
considered to be extirpated.
Sanford’s
arrowhead
(Sagittaria
sanfordii)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in
freshwater-marsh, primarily ponds
and ditches, at elevations below
1000 feet. Blooms May–October.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soil for this species is
absent from the APE. The last observation within
three miles of the APE was in recorded in 1954.
The site was searched again in 1980 and the
species was not found.
Succulent owl’s-
clover (Castilleja
campestris var.
succulenta)
FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in vernal pools, often in acidic
soils at elevations below 2500 feet.
Blooms April – July.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soil for this species is
absent from the APE. The nearest observation
approximately three miles away in 1938 is now
considered to be possibly extirpated due to the
site being disced in 1981.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-23
EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES
Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.
Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.
STATUS CODES
FT Federally Threatened CE California Endangered
FC Federal Candidate CT California Threatened
CSC California Species of Concern
CNPS LISTING
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and the EPA regulate the placement of fill into the Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. The term "Waters of the U.S." includes wetlands, special aquatic sites, and other non-wetland waters such as bays, rivers, and lakes. The jurisdictional limit of tidal Waters of the U.S. under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act is the Mean High -Water line. However, Section 404 of the CWA extends the jurisdictional limit to the High Tide line. The High Tide Line is the highest elevation of the tide in a normal year, excluding storm events. Wetlands adjacent to the Mean High -Water line or High Tide Line are also under the United States Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction. For this purpose, the term "Waters of the U.S." is legally defined under Section 404 of the CWA. It includes seasonal drainages with a defined channel and support wetland species but lacks positive indicators of wetland soils.
Since 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court found in several court rulings that regulation of isolated, intrastate waters by USACE has limited the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CWA and excluded many California wetlands from federal regulation.
In December 2019, the EPA and USACE published the final rule to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The "Clean Water Rule” was designed to clarify what constitutes Waters of the U.S., and presumably, to define and make permitting more predictable, thus less costly and more straightforward more precisely.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Section 703-711), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 United States Code [USC] Section 668), and Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC section 153 et seq.).
The MBTA was enacted in 1916 to protect migratory birds between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada). The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, transport, purchase, barter, or offer for sale or purchase any migratory birds, nests, or eggs unless a federal agency has issued a permit. The USFWS has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the MBTA. The MBTA was reformed in 2004 (Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act) to include all species native to the U.S. or
4.4.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-24
its territories, which occur due to natural biological or ecological processes (70 Federal Register [FR] 12710, March 15, 2005). The Act does not include non-native species whose occurrences in the U.S. are solely the result of inte ntional or unintentional human introduction. The USFWS maintains a list of bird species protected under the MBTA.
In January 2021, the USFWS published a rule change under which the unintentional killing of migratory birds does not violate the MBTA. Only th e intentional “pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same…directed at migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs” would be illegal under the changes.
The ESA prohibits "take" of any federally-listed species. "Take" under the federal definition means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Candidate species" do not have the full protection of ESA. However, the USFWS advises project applicants that it is prudent to address these species since they could be elevated to "listed status" "before completion of projects with long planning or development schedules. "Incidental take" is harm or death that may occur during the implementation of an otherwise lawful activity.
Projects that would result in "take" "of any federally -listed threatened or endangered species can obtain authorization from the USFWS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation) or Section 10(a) (incidental take permit) of F ederal Endangered Species Act. The authorization process determines if a project would jeopardize a listed species' continued existence and what mitigation measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species.
An Incidental Take Permit or Take Permi t is required when an activity would either kill, harm, harass, or interrupt a listed species' breeding or nesting. The ESA definition of "harm" is somewhat less definitive since it includes ubiquitous activities. In 1999 the USFWS published in the Federal Register a clarification of the term "harm" as it applies to the ESA. As stated, the final rule defined the term "harm" "to include any act which causes actual harm (kills or injures fish or wildlife) and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.
The USFWS cannot require or compel a landowner to obtain an Incidental Take Permit, especially under Section 10. On April 25, 2018, the USFWS issued a guidance memorandum intended to help the USFWS' Regional Directors clarify the appropriate trigger for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While this guidance was directed internally to USFWS staff to determine whether project- related habitat modification is likely to result in "take" of a listed species, it also provides a tool for project proponents to decide whether to seek an ITP. The guidance emphasizes that the decision to pursue an ITP or whether to cover a species is the project proponent's choice to make and is not up to the USFWS.
Further, the guidance recognizes that "the biological, legal and economic risk assessment regarding whether to seek a permit belongs with the private party”.
The guidance also clarifies that that habitat modification, in and of itself, does not constitute "take" unless the three components of "harm" are met. Thus, to find that habitat modification constitutes an incidental take of listed species, the following questions must all be answered in the affirmative:
• Is the modification of habitat significant?
• Does that modification also significantly impair an essential behavior pattern of a listed species? • Is the significant modification of the habitat likely to result in the actual killing or injury of wildlife?
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-25
State
State Water Resources Control Board
Since 1993, California has had a Wetlands Conservation Policy (Executive Order W -59-93). Commonly referred to as the No Net Loss Policy for wetlands, this order establishes a State mandate for developing and adopting a policy framework and strategy to protect the state's wetland ecosystems. The policy was to be implemented voluntarily and was expressly not to be implemented on a "project-by-project" basis (See EO W-59-93, Section III).
In 2020, the newly adopted State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect. The procedures, most often, are applied through regional water board sign -off (or “ "c" certification") of USACE wetland permits. The State definition of wetland differs from the federal definition in a key way. Specifically, the State definition defines areas as wetlands that have no vegetation if other criteria are met. Wetlands of the State include 1) natural wetlands, 2) wetlands created by modification of a waters of the state (at any point in history), and 3) artificial wetlands that meet specific criteria. Only a few types of waters are exempted from the State definition of wetlands.
Examples of water features excluded from the State's definition include industrial or municipal wastewater, certain types of stormwater treatment facilities, agricultural crop irrigation, industrial processing or cooling, and fields flooded for rice growing.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a Trustee Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and providing recommendations on projects that could impact plant and wildlife resources.
Under Fish and Game Code Section 1802, the CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations.
The California Fish and Game Code also prov ides authority for the CDFW to regulate projects that could result in the "take" of any species listed by the S tate as threatened or endangered (Section 2081). CDFW also has authority over all state streams, as described below.
Perennial and intermittent s treams also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW according to Sections 1601 - 1603 of the Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements). CDFW's jurisdictional extent includes work within the stream zone, including the diversion or obstruction of the na tural flow or changes in the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Before issuing a 1601 or 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, the CDFW must demonstrate compliance with CEQA. In most cases, CDFW relies on the CEQA review performed by the local lead agency. However, in cases where no CEQA review was required for the project, CDFW would act as the lead agency under CEQA.
The CDFW also has authority for the protection of State-listed species issues under Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit if a project has the potential to negatively affect State -protected plant or animal species or their habitats, either directly or indirectly. Protected species include those "listed" by the state as endangered or threatened. Besides listed species, there are other species protection categories, including "fully protected" and California Species of Special Concern. Adverse impacts to species that have the "fully protected" designation are prohibited.
Under FGC Section 3503, "it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird…" Birds of prey (falcons, hawks, owls, and eagles) get extra protection under the law (FGC Section 3503.5).
As is the case with USFW S, CDFW does not have the authority to require a landowner to apply for an I TP authorizing take. Instead, the landowner has the legal obligation to avoid any take of CTS if it does not seek
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-26
an ITP or to apply for and receive an ITP that authorizes take. That said, CDFW (and USFWS) can initiate an enforcement action if they believe that illegal take has occurred or will occur.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protects candidate plants and animal species and those listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW. CESA prohibits the take of any such species unless authorized.
Section 2081 authorizes the S tate to issue incidental take permits. The S tate definition of taking applies only to acts that result in the death of or adverse impacts to protected species. The CESA mirrors the federal regulation as it relates to "take"; however, there is no S tate equivalent definition of "harm" or "harass." Incidental take is also not defined by the CESA statute or regulation. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA does qualify that incidental “take" is not prohibited "if it is the result of an act that occurs on a farm or ranch in the course of an otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activity." Where disagreement occurs (and in some cases, this has been the subject of court cases) is in the common understanding of “routine and ongoing agricultural activity”.
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines require a review of projects to determine their environmental effects and identify mitigation for significant effects. The Guidelines state an effect may be significant if it affects rare and endangered species. Guidelines Section 15380 defines “rare” to include listed species and allows agencies to consider rare species other than those designated as State or f ederal threatened or endangered, but that meet the standards for rare under the federal or State endangered species acts. On this basis, plants designated as rare by non-regulatory organizations (e.g., California Native Plant Society), species of special concern as defined by CDFW, candidate species as defined by USFWS, and other designations may need to be considered in CEQA analyses.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies that protect biological resources and which have potential relevance to the Project’s environmental review:
• Objective POSS -5: Provide for long -term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.
• Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified a s a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Of the seven regionally -occurring special status animal species, all were found to be absent or unlikely to occur within the APE due to unsuitable habitat. As explained in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 these species include: California tiger salamander (CTS), Monarch butterfly, Tricolored b lackbird, Western pond turtle, California tiger salamander, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass , and Sanford’s arrowhead . Since it is unlikely these species would occur onsite,
4.4.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-27
implementation of the Project would have no impact on these special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Protection measures are not warranted.
The APE contains suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for ground and tree nesting avian species. With implementation of mitigation measures
BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, should nesting birds be found prior to commencement of construction a protective buffer would be placed around the area consistent with CDFW and USFWS guidelines. This would ensure any potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact . The CDFW and USFWS often designate areas of “Critical Habitat” when listing species as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and would require special management or protection. According to CNDDB and IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and vicinity.
CDFW also designates “natural communities of special concern” that are defined by distinguished, significant biological diversity, or a home to special status species. According to CNDDB Northern Claypan Vernal Pool is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located 2.5 miles west of the APE. Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located is 4 miles northeast, 7 miles northwest, 7.5 miles north, 9 miles northwest, and 11 miles northwest of the APE. Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located 5.5 miles north of the APE. Sycamore Alluvial Woodland is designated as a natural community of special concern and is located 6.5 miles north of the APE. These natural communities would not be impacted by the Project. There would be no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The Project does not contain any federally protected wetlands or other Waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Appendix B). The nearest surface waters is a detention basin approximately 650 feet west of the APE. Implementation of the Project would have no impact on jurisdictional waters, wetlands, navigable waters, wild and scenic rivers, riparian habitat, or other water features. Therefore, the Project would not require jurisdictional permits from regulatory compliance agencies. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter -population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-28
The APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.
Further, the APE is heavil y disturbed by human activities, which would discourage dispersal and migration. There would be no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. As described above, wildlife buffers are not warranted , and no trees are proposed to be removed. Therefore, implementation of the Project would be compliant with the aforementioned local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. There would be no impact. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact.
Mitigation
The Project’s const ruction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre -construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet surrounding the Project, no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.
On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the qualified biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the sp ecies in question.
Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.
4.4.4 BIO-1
BIO-2
BIO-3
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-29
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-11: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Baseline Conditions
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in March 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural res ource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks ( CHL), the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ¼-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (
Appendix C).
Additional sources included the California Office of Historic Preservation ( OHP) Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Native American Heritage Commission – Sacred Lands File Search The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Nati ve Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. In May 2022, the NAHC was provided a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location along with a request to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The results of that search were negative.
□ n n
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.5.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-30
Applicable Regulations
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) is the most concise and effective federal law dealing with historic preservation. Federal preservation law does not apply to this analysis but a short review of the legislation is needed because the State and local requirements are derived from that legislation. The NHPA established guidelines to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspe cts of our cultural heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice.” The NHPA includes regulations specifically for federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (known as Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. In addition, the NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish the NRHP. The NHRP is an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant at a national, State, or local level in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is wholly maintained by the National Park Service (NPS), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and OHP, and grants-in‐aid programs.
The City participates in the Certified Local Government (CLG), a preservation partnership between the local, State, and federal governments focused on promoting historic preservation at the grass roots level. The program is jointly administered by NPS and OHP, with each local community working through a certification process to become recognized as a CLG.
State
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California.
Important cultural resources can be listed in the Ca lifornia Register through a number of methods, and listing requires approval from the State Historical Resources Commission. Properties can be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. CHLs and National Register- listed properties gain automatic listing in the California Register. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the NPS for the National Register. In order for a cultural resource to be significant, or in other words eligible, for listing in the California Register, it must reflect one or more of the following criteria (PRC 5024.1c):
• Criterion 1 (Events) : Resources that are associated with events that have made a signi ficant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
• Criterion 2 (Persons) : Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
• Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
• Criterion 4 (Information Potential) : Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires that public agencies assess the effects on historical resources of public or private projects that the agencies finance or approve. Historical resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, objects, areas, places, records, or manuscripts that the lead
4.5.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-31
agency determines to have historical sign ificance, including architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific significance. CEQA requires that if a project results in an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered.
However, only significant historical resources need to be addressed. Therefore, before the assessment of effects or development of mitigation measures, the significance of cultural resources must be determined.
The steps that are normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are as follows:
1. Identify potential historical resources.
2. Evaluate the eligibility of historical resources.
3. Evaluate the effects of the project on all eligible historical resources.
In addition, properties that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1[d][1]) and thus are significant historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
A project with an eff ect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[b]). CEQA also states that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of an historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or materially and adversely alter the physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or i n a local register or survey that meet the requirements of PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g).
Significant Historical Resources under CEQA Guidelines. In completing an analysis of a project under CEQA, it must first be determined if the project site possesses a historical resource. A site may qualify as a historical resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for, listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5024.1; Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 4850 et seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC S ection 5024.1 (g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (P RC Section 5024.1; Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-32
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
A lead agency must consider a resource that has been listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register (Category 1) as a historical resource for CEQA purposes. In general, a resource that meets any of the other three criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is also considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates” that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”
Health and Safety Code. The discovery of human remains is regulated by HSC Section 7050.5, which states, “If human remains are encountered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
The County Coroner must be notified to the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.”
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the city. The following objective and polic ies related to cultural resources are presented in the General Plan:
• Objective HCR-1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resources. • Objective HCR -2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change. o Policy HCR -2-a: Identifi cation and Designation of Historic Properties. Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate. o Policy HCR-2-c: Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultur al resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-33
o Policy HCR -2-d: Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community -at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape. o Policy HCR -2-f: Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.
City of Fresno Municipal Code
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City of Fresno has established a Historic Preservation Commission and a Local Register of Historic Resources (Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16). The Ordinance is used to provide local levels of control over the historical aesthetics of cu ltural resources within the city, and to ensure that the potential impact to locally significant historical resources that may be the subject of redevelopment are given reasonable consideration. The purpose of the Ordinance is to:
[…] continue to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; to continue to protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; to continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which re flect elements of the city’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; to continue to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development. (Article 16 Section 12-1602(a).) The Ordinance provides legislative mechanisms to protect certain historical resources. Local registers of identified historical resources are known, including:
1. Heritage Properties. These are defined as a resource which is worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural or aesthetic merit but which is not proposed for and is not designated as an Historic Resource under the ordinance.
2. Historic Resources. These are defined as any building, structure, object or site that has been in existence more than fifty years and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city history, or is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a maste r or possesses high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history; and has been designated as such by the Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance.
3. Local Historic Districts. These are defined as any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united histo rically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The Local Historic District must be significant as well as identifiable and it must meet Local Register Criteria for listing on that Register. Contributors to Historic Districts are defined as any H istoric Resource that contributes to the significance of the specific Local Historic District or a proposed National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.
4. National Register Historic Districts, which shall mean any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-34
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A National Register Historic District must be significant as well as identifiable and it must meet National Register Criteria for listing on that Register. Contributors to a National Register Historic District are defin ed as any individual Historic Resource which contributes to the significance of a National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.
Certified Local Government. The CLG Program is administered by OHP. When a Lead Agency becomes a CLG it agrees to carry out the intent of and serve as a local steward of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In meeting those standards, OHP serves as an advisor. The use of the National Register/Cali fornia Register criteria and the Secretary of the Interior Standards integrates local, state, and federal levels of review. It brings clarity to the question of what resources are significant when it comes to CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Adopting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will allow the use of categorical exemptions under CEQA, and likely result of findings of no adverse effect under Section 106. The use of these criteria and standards make environmental re view faster, more efficient, and reduces costs and delays. The City has been certified as a CLG since September 1996.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . A CHRIS records search from SSJVIC was conducted in March of 2022 and confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies in the project area. There have been seven studies conducted within a one-half mile radius: FR-01006, 01223, 01844, 01880, 01946, 02318, & 02319. The search also confirmed the absence of identified cultural resources within the Project area and the absence of any recorded cultural resources within a one -half mile radius. Additionally, a Sacred Lands Search from NAHC was also conducted for the Project area and the results were negative the presence of known cultural resources.
It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects historical resources, such as historic properties. However, in the unlikely event tha t cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below,
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archa eological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . A CHRIS records search from SSJVIC was conducted in March of 2022 and confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies in the project area. There have been seven studies conducted within a one-half mile radius: FR-01006, 01223, 01844, 01880, 01946, 02318, & 02319. The search also confirmed the absence of identified cultural resources within the Project area and the absence of any recorded cultural resources within a one-half mile radius. Additionally, a Sacred Lands Search from NAHC was also conducted for the Project area and the results were negative the presence of known cultural resources.
It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts or historic properties. However, in the
4.5.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-35
unlikely event that cu ltural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below, would reduce impacts to less than significant. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitig ation shall be implemented. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure PEIR CUL-3, as presented in the GP PEIR, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be less than significant.
Mitigation
CUL-1 Should archaeologica l remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of Project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If additional mitigation is warranted, the Project proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.
PEIR CUL-3 In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to over lie adjacent remains until the Fresno County Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and dis position of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
If the Fresno County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC.
4.5.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-36
4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-12: Energy Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Baseline Conditions
The site currently consists of a vacant lot. No energy is consumed with the exception of periodic visits for weed removal.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil and co nfronting climate change. Specifically, it does the following:
• Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent as compared to 2007 levels.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 USC Section 17001, et seq.
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, this legislation established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) for establishing and regula rly updating vehicle standards. The EPA administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. Since the inception of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the average fuel economy for new light-duty vehicles steadily increased from 13.1 miles per gallon for the 1975 model year □ □ □
□ □ n
4.6.1 4.6.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-37
to 30.7 miles per gallon for the 2014 model year and is proposed to increase to 54.5 by 2025. Light- duty vehicles include autos, pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles.
Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by EPA to identify and promote energy -efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems.
Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the EPA joined with the Department of Energy to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.
Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 C FR Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
State
California Energy Action Plan
The California Energy Commission ( CEC) is responsible for preparing the California Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The 2008 California Energy Action Plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use o f fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 ( Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CARB prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance -based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. In response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long -term plan to increase alternative fuel use.
Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety. The most recent assessment, the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report, contains two volumes. Volume I highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-38
Volume II provides more detail on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and integrating more renewable energy into the electricity system.
Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy effici ency and conservation by December 31, 2030.
California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which had last been updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required California to apply for a waiver under the C AA. Although the EPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, EPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to i ts initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.
On September 19, 2019, the EPA withdrew California’s CAA preemption waiver and issued the One National Program Rule, which prohibits states from establishing their own separate fuel economy standards or passing laws that substantially affect fuel economy standards. As a result, California may no longer promulgate and enforce its tailpipe GHG emission standard and zero emission vehicle mandate.
Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the CEC and California Public Utilities Commission set forth their energy policy vision in the Energy Action Plan (EAP). The CEC adopted an update to the EAP in February 2008 (EAP II) that supplements the earlier EAP and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstration, and climate change.
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, State, and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non -petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-39
Bioenergy Action Plan (Executive Order S-06-06)
EO S -06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following in -state production targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources:
• Produce 20 percent of biofuels used in California by 2010; • Produce 40 percent of biofuels used in California by 2020; and, • Produce 75 percent of biofuels used in California by 2050.
EO S-06-06 also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies potential barriers and recommends actions to address them so the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
• Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste • Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
• Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state • Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.
Title 24, California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Titl e 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption an d provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020, must follow the 2019 standards. Energy efficient buildings requir e less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.
California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building in the State. Having taken effect in January 2020, the most recent version of CalGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresident ial buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved energy efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap -and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy effi ciency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target, including goals specifically targeted at the water sector
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-40
Local
Fresno Council of Governments 2018 – 2042 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a comprehensive assessment of all forms of transportation available in Fresno County and of the needs for travel and goods movement. The 2014 RTP contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by SB 375. Enacted in 2008, SB 375 requires that each Metropolitan Planning Organization include an SCS that provides an integrated land use and transportation plan for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
In June 2018, Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) adopted the 2018 -2042 RTP/SCS. The Draft 2018-2042 RTP/SCS charts the 25- year course of transportation to 2042 to address greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other air emiss ions. The RTP is made up of a variety of different elements or chapters, and each element is augmented by additional documentation. The RTP also contains a chapter that establishes the SCS to show how integrated land use and transportation planning can lea d to lower greenhouse gas emissions from autos and light trucks, as well as improve overall quality of life in the region.
Fresno COG is currently preparing its 2022-2046 RTP/SCS.
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno implements the following poli cies that are applicable to the Project related to energy consumption:
Chapter 3, Urban Form, Land Use, and Design
LU-5-c Medium Density Residential Uses. Promote medium density residential uses to maximize efficient use of residential property through a wide range of densities.
Chapter 7, Resource Conservation and Resilience
RC-8-a Existing Standards and Programs. Existing Standards and Programs. Continue existing beneficial energy conservation programs, including adhering to the California Energy Code in new construction and major renovations.
RC-8-b Energy Reduction Targets. Strive to reduce per capita residential electricity use to 1,800 kWh per year and non-residential electricity use to 2,700 kWh per year per capita by developing and implementing incentives, design and operation standards, promoting alternative energy sources, and cost- effective savings.
RC-8-c Energy Conservation in New Development. Consider providing an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by fifteen percent.
RC-8-d Incentives. Establish an incentive program for residential developers who commit to building all of their homes to ENERGY STAR performance guidelines.
RC-8-h Solar Assistance. Identify and publicize information about financial mechanisms for private solar installations and provide over -the-counter permitting for solar installations meeting specified standards, which may include maximum size (in kV) of units that can be so approved
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-41
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in po tentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires new residential development to incorporate energy efficiency standards into Project designs. In addition, the Project would implement General Plan policies. The Project proposes the construction of medium density residences to use land in a way that emphasizes conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability of Fresno. The planned land uses require design that provides for walkable and pedestrian -scaled developments and efficient use of resources (LU -5-b). The General Plan provides for the imp lementation of incentives, design and operations standards that promote alternative energy sources and cost -effective savings (Policies RC -8-a, RC-8-b, RC-8-c, RC-8-d, and RC-8-h). Natural gas for the Project and the surrounding area is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The Project site does not currently have a demand for natural gas usage and the Project would represent an increase in natural gas usage. However, PG&E has indicated it can meet the increased demand for natural gas with its existing facilities and through engaging in Energy Efficiency programs (EE). PG&E’s EE programs include services to customers such as evaluating consumption options, equipment retrofits, and rebates among other EE programs. This overall trend in reduced natural gas consumption would result in new projects, including the subject Project having reduced impacts related to natural gas consumption. Current regulations for construction equipment, heavy-duty equipment, and earthmoving equipment used in construction contributes to reductions in energy as well as reduction in pollutant emissions. California implemented its In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulations (off-road regulation) which applies to all self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater and most two-engine vehicles. The Small Off -Road Engines program was implemented by California to apply to categories of outdoor powered equipment and specialty vehicles often used in construction.
Through compliance with energy reduction standards and regulations aimed at reducing consumption of transportation related energy consumption, as well as the energy provider’s energy reduction programs, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to energy usage during Project operations and construction and its impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption overall, would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. Project design, construction and operation would comply with the City’s Green Handbook, a guide for builders to achieve sustainability. The Green Handbook is a component of the City of Fresno’s Strategy for Achieving Sustainability. The Green Handbook’s standards are supported by the City’s General Plan policies and regulated through Title 24 building code requirements, such as energy efficient building materials and appliances. Compliance with these policies would support a decrease in energy consumption and GHG emissions compared to business as usual, enabling the Project to contribute to sustainable community goals and the goals of AB 32. The Project would not conflict with any of the applicable plans including Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, SB 350, and SB 100 ; therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.
4.6.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-42
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-13: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
The Project is located in north -central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the □ □ □
□ □ □
n □ n
n □ n
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
n □ n
n n n
4.7.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-43
uplifted Sierra Nevada Range. From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.
Faults and Seismicity
Most of Fresno is situated within an area of relatively low seismic activity and is not located within a known active earthquake fault zone. The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Fresno. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 74 miles southwest of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates.
The San Joaquin Fault is located approximately 59 miles west of the Project site.
Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Fresno County, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high- water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too course. Furthermore, the average depth to groundwater within the City of Fresno is approximately 85 to 95 feet, which also minimizes liquefaction potential.
Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over -saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open -textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Fresno County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Fresno’ s elevation has remained relatively unchanged. One soil mapping unit representing a singular soil type was identified within the APE. Hanford fine sandy loam, clay loam substratum is found within 100 percent of the Project site. It is well drained and has moderately rapid permeability and very low runoff. This soil is primarily used for agriculture, dairies, and urban development.
None of the major or minor soil mapping units were identified as hydric. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, f looded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported.
Dam and Levee Failure
Hundreds of dams and reservoirs have been built in California for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric power, and recreational uses. The storage capacity of these dams varies across the State from large reservoirs with capacities exceeding millions of acre -feet (AF) to small reservoirs with capacities from hundreds to thousands of AF. Depending on the season, water from these reservoirs is released into the river system of the State and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean. The San Joaquin River, located at the north edge of the City of Fresno, is the primary river in the vicinity. The San Joaquin River is impounded by Friant Dam, which forms the 520 ,000-acre-foot Lake Millerton, approximately 16 miles northeast of the Project site. If Friant dam were to fail, a large portion of Fresno County, including the City of Fresno, would be inundated with water.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-44
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act: The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was significantly amended in November 1990 by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act (NEHRPA), which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.
NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post - earthquake inve stigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The NEHRPA designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: In response to the severe fault rupture damage of structures by the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the State of California enacted the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972. This act required the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) along known active faults that have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. Faults that are zoned under the Alquist- Priolo Act must meet the strict definition of being “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” for inclusion as an EFZ. The EFZs are revised periodically, and extend 200 to 500 feet on either side of identified fault traces. No structures for human occupancy may be built across an identified active fault trace. An area of 50 feet on either side of an active fault trace is assumed to be underlain by the fault, unless proven otherwise. Proposed construction in an EFZ is permit ted only following the completion of a fault location report prepared by a California Registered Geologist. This Act does not apply to areas within the Project site because no active faults cross the Project site.
California Building Code: Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Code (CBC), sets forth minimum requirements for building design and construction. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards and reviews the CBC every three years. The Commission makes certain State modifications, and adopts the new code edition for use throughout the State. Once the Commission votes to adopt the new code edition, it will become effective on the first of January of the upcoming year, regardless of whether local cities or counties formally adopt it. The current version, the 2019 California Buildings Standard Code, became effective on July 1, 2019.
The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes.
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions.
4.7.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-45
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.
In the context of earthquake hazards, the CBC’s design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following a seismic event. Recognizing that the risk of severe seismic ground motion varies from pla ce to place, the CBC seismic code provisions will vary depending on location (Seismic Zones 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4; with 0 being the least stringent and 4 being the most stringent). The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, Site Class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients, which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC. Counties and cities may modify their adoption of the CBC to address local conditions. Most California cities and counties modify the State adopted version of the CBC to address local circumstances related to the local climate, topography, or geology. Since modifications cannot be less restrictive, the CBC provides a minimum standard for protecting public health, safety, and welfare that applies throughout the study area.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan: The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for t he physical development of the city. The following objective and policies related to agricultural resources are presented in the General Plan:
• Objective NS -2: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.
• Policy NS-2-a: Seismic Protection. Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site and its vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Al quist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist -Priolo Fault Zoning Act ( PRC Section 2622). The nearest active fault to the Project is the San Joaquin Fault, located approximately 59 miles west of the Project site. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, approximately 72 miles southwest. Based on this information, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The impact would be less than significant.
4.7.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-46
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project site and its vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (PRC Section 2622).
Although there are no known earthquake faults within the vicinity of the Project, and strong ground shaking is unlikely, construction of the proposed residential structures would comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the CBC. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. According to the DOC’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the Project site is not located in an area identified to be at a risk of liquefaction. Like most of California, the Project site is in an area that does experience seismic related activity to varying degrees. However, it is not located in the vicinity of a fault zone or an identified area that would result in substantial seismic related ground failure that would result in adverse effects to people or the environment. iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils.
The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. Therefore, the Project site has minimal -to-no landslide susceptibility, and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction over an area of approximately 3 acres. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes however, the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration o f runoff, and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, and construction of linear underground or overhead facilities associated with residential construction, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original lines, grade, o r capacity of the overhead or underground facilities. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Since the Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion and would comply with SWRCB requirements, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-47
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Soils of the Project site consist of Hanford loam, which is coarse-textured, low in clay content, and well-drained. It is well drained and has moderately rapid permeability and very low runoff, and therefore, is not considered expansive soils . Furthermore, the aforementioned physical properties of these soils make subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other ground failure unlikely.
Any impacts would be considered less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project would not be located on expansive soil creating a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property. The Project would be located on land consisting entirely of Hanford fine sandy loam, clay loam substratum according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey of the Project site. The soil is not expansive. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project would be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the Project. There would be no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . No known paleontological resources have been identified or are known to exist on the Project site. However, if a paleontological resource is found on site, the incorporation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation
GEO-1 Should paleontological resource s be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analys is, a final report. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Visalia for review, and (if paleontologic al materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
4.7.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-48
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-14: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Baseline Conditions
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing.
Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
Methane (CH
4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.
Nitrous oxide (N
2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. N 2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen.
In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.
Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.
Ozone (O 3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature.
Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.
Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. □ □ n
□ □ n
4.8.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-49
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semicon ductor manufacture.
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. SF 6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase.
There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic rang e, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.
Emissions of GHGs contributi ng to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
About three-quarters of human emissions of CO
2 to the global atmosphere d uring the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, CH4, and N 2O have increased 31 percent, 151 percent, and 17 percent respectively since the year 1750 (CEC 2008). GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH 4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approx imately 21 tons of CO 2.
Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Clean Air Act
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for executing the CAA and its amendments. In 2007, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that carbon di oxide (CO2) is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and thus the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. The ruling resulted in the EPA taking steps to regulate GHG emissions and lend support for State and local agency in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
Federal Regulations for Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards
The EPA and the NHTSA in 2012 issued final rules to reduce GHG emissions and improve the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light- duty vehicles of model years 2017 and beyond. These CAFE standards have been enacted since 1978 under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single nation light- duty fleet that meets both the requirements under federal programs and those of California and other states. This program would improve fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon -equivalent limiting vehicle emissions to 153 grams of CO 2 4.8.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-50
per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025, which represents five percent annual increases in fuel economy.
The EPA and NHTSA jointly published in 2018 a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (SAFE Rule), which proposed:
1. new and amended CO2 and CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks,
2. to withdraw the waiver EPA had previously provided to California for that State’s GHG and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) programs under Section 209 of the CAA, and
3. regulatory text to implement NHTSA’s statutory authority to set nationally applicable fuel economy standards to explicitly preempt California’s GHG and ZEV programs.
In 2019, Part One of the SAFE Rule (One National Program) became effective, which withdrew California’s waiver from EPA and finalized NHTSA’s regulatory text related to preemption of State regulations. In 2020, EPA and NHTSA announced Part Two of the SAFE Rule, which would establish amended fuel economy and CO
2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks of model years 2021-2026. These revised standards would increase in stringency by 1.5 percent per year from model year 2020 over model years 2021-2026 State
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05
In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued EO S -3-05, proclaiming that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The EO declares that increasing temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To address those concerns, the EO established GHG emission targets for the State and identified responsibilities for State agencies in meeting the targets. Specifically, statewide emissions are to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006, AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was signed into law. AB 32 establishes regulations, reporting requirements, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable re ductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 required that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires that:
a) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit shall remain in effect unless otherwise am ended or repealed.
b) (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020.
c) (c) The [CARB] shall make recom mendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020. [California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5, Part 3, Section 38551]
Executive Order B-30-15
In 2015, Governor Brown issued EO B -30-15 which established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long -term target previously established under EO S-3-05 to reach the goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
This is consistent with scientifically -established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-51
degrees Celsius, the threshol d at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.
Senate Bill 32
In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law and serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020.
SB 32 amended existing regulations to a uthorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030, codifying the 2030 target established by EO B-30-15.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley)
AB 1493, enacted in 2002, require s the reduction of GHGs from automobiles and light -duty trucks to the maximum extent feasible and cost-effective. In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations that applied to new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 2009 through 2016. Pavley I was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from regulated vehicles by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. Pavley II was incorporated into Amendments to the Low -Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III. The amendments, which took effect in 2012, apply to vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
Also in 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which sought to combine the contro l of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles, into a single package of regulatory standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. These regulations strengthen the GHG standard fo r 2017 models and beyond and would be achieved through existing and more efficient technologies. The program’s ZEV regulation would require battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to comprise up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also included a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the development of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the state. By 2025, when it was assumed the rules would be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks would emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog -forming emissions than the statewide fleet in 2016.
Senate Bill 100
In 2018, SB 100 increased Califo rnia’s Renewable Energy Portfolio targets for utility companies to 52 percent renewables by 2027 and 60 percent renewables by 2030. It also established a new zero -carbon electricity mandate by 2040.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) CCR Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings.
Title 24 Part 6 was established by California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy- efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards are typically updated every three years as part of the State’s triennial code update schedule and have resulted in substantial gains in energy efficiency in new construction with each code update cycle. For example, the 2013 Title 24 standards that became effective in 2014 are 23.3 percent more efficient than the previous 2008 standards for residential construction and 21.8 percent more efficient for nonresidential construction. Similarly, the 2016 Title 24 standards that became effective in 2017 are 28 percent more efficient than the 2013 standards for residential construction and are approximately 5 percent more efficient for nonresidential construction.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-52
The 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted by CEC on May 9, 2018 and took effect on January 1, 2020. The standards are designed to move the State closer to its zero net energy goals for new residential development. It does so by requiring all new residences to install enough renewable energy to offset all the site electricity needs of each residential unit. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are enforced t hrough the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards are demonstrated to be cost effective and exceed the energy performance required by Title 24 Part 6.
California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted Part 11 of CCR Title 24, titled the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) which became effective in 2009 as a voluntary code. The 2019 CALGreen Code standards became effective on January 1, 2020. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non- residential building construction and encourages sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and reso urce efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co -benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and non-residential buildings subject to the standard.
Senate Bill 97
SB 97, enacted in 2007, amended the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. The legislation directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions” and directed the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of GHG Emissions, was added as part of the CEQA Guideline amendments that became effective in 2010 and describes the criteria needed in a GHG reduction plan that would allow for the tiering and streamlining of CEQA analysis for development projects.
Senate Bill X7-7
SB X7-7 requires water suppliers to reduce urban per capita water consumption 20 percent from a baseline level by 2020. The production and treatment of water, as well as the treatment of wastewater, requires substantial amount of electricity, and thus there this a direct relationship between water and greenhouse gases.
California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by 1995, and 50 percent by 2000. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate also applies to State agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally-safe transformation and land disposal.
In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent; the 50
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-53
percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
In 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to e nergy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target.
Cap-and-Trade Program
The Cap -and-Trade program was developed to reduce GHG emissions from major emissions sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on sta tewide GHG emissions that is gradually reduced over time while employing market mechanisms to cost- effectively achieve the State’s emission -reduction goals. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions, incl uding electricity generators, large industrial facilities emitting a specified amount of annual emissions, and distributors of transportation, natural gas, and other fuels, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide the approximately 450 entities covered by the program with the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. All covered entities are required to demonstrate compliance with the cap-and-trade program by implementing GHG reduction activities on -site or through use of free or purchased allowances, or purchase of offsets
Local
City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update
The City of Fresno’s GHG Reduction Plan Update was adopted in December 2021 to reduce local community GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030, consistent with the State objectives set forth by SB 32. The GHG Plan Update outlines strategies that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. The GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Project construction emissions are estimated to g enerate 294 MTCO2e.
Construction emissions would include off -road construction vehicles, worker vehicles, and delivery vehicles. Project operation emissions would generate 213 MTCO2e/yr using an operational year of 2023.
Operational emissions would include area, energy, mobile, waste, and water sources. This exceeds the existing land use designation’s build -out amount of 119 MTCO 2e/yr. The P roject must either show consistency with applicable General Plan objectives and p olicies or provide analysis and measures to incorporate into the project to bring the GHG emissions to a level that is less than or equal to the estimated project emission at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s).
4.8.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-54
Table 4-15: Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Policy Policy Short Name Consistency Discussion
LU-2-a Infill Development and Redevelopment
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project
proposes to develop on vacant land within the City
Limits where urban services are available.
LU-5-f High Density Residential Uses.
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project
proposes a high -density residential use that provides
walkable access to nearby transit stops.
MT-2-b
MT-2-c
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips
Reduce VMT through Infill Development
Consistent with these General Plan policies, the Project proposes to locate on vacant land in a Low VMT area.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update stipulates that projects currently designated for residential development that increase development densities and comply with the relevant GHG reduction strategies in the General Plan are considered to have a less than significant GHG impact. As the Project will be required to comply with all relevant GHG reduction strategies in the General Plan, and the Project proposes to increase the residential density of the Project site, the Project will have a less than significant impact. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update stipulates that projects currently designated for residential development that increase development densities and comply with the relevant GHG reduction strategies in the General Plan are considered to have a less than significant GHG impact. As the Project will be required to comply with all relevan t GHG reduction strategies in the General Plan, and the Project proposes to increase the residential density of the Project site, the Project will have a less than significant impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-55
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. GC Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data (DTSC, 2010). □ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.9.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-56
In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non- UST cleanup programs, including Spills -Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. Searches of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on March 24, 2022 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity. The nearest such location is at 1225 North Willow Avenue in Clovis, located approximately 0.5-mile north of the site.
Airports
The Project is located approximately 7.1 miles north of the Fresno International Airport. The Project is not located within any identified airport protection zones within the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Emergency Response Plan
The City’s Emergency Preparedness Officer is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up -to-date and implemented properly. The Emergency Preparedness Officer facilitates cooperation between City departme nts and other local, S tate, and federal agencies, including Fresno County. The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational Area Master Plan.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors within the Project’s vicinity consist of other residential uses directly to the east and north of the Project site. Adjacent to the Project on the west side there is also a hospice. No other identified concentrations of sensitive receptors such as hospitals or schools are within the Project’s vicinity.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act. Established in 1976 and amended on December 31, 2002, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 United States Code [ USC] Section 2601-2692) grants the EPA power to require proper reporting, record-keeping, and testing requirements related to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Specifically, the TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, radon, and lead -based paints. The TSCA establishes the EPA’s authority to require the notification of the use of chemicals, require testing, maintain a TSCA inventory, and require those importing chemicals un der Sections 12(b) and 13 to comply with certification and/or other reporting requirements. This federal legislation also phased out the use of asbestos-containing materials in new building materials and sets requirements for the use, handling, and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. Disposal standards for lead-based paint wastes are also detailed in the TSCA.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right -To-Know Act. The Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act (also known as Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or “SARA III”) (42 USC Section 11001, et seq.), was established by the EPA to allow for emergency planning at the State and local level regarding chemical emergencies, to provide notification of emergency release of chemicals, and to address community right- to-know regarding hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA III was designed to increase community access and knowledge about chemical hazards as
4.9.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-57
well as facilitate the creation and implementation of State /Native American tribe emergency response commissions, responsible for coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency planning committees. Section 1910.1200(c) Title 29 of the C ode of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines “chemicals or hazardous materials” for the purposes of SARA III.
Federal Air Regulations, Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with the review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Its role in reviewing these activities is to ensure that new structures do not result in a hazard to navigation. The regulations in the Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR Part 77) are designed to ensure that no obstructions in navigable air space are allowed to exist that would endanger the public. Proposed structures are also evaluated against Terminal En Route Procedures, which ensure that a structure does not adversely impact flight procedures. Tall structures, including buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers in the vicinity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes. Federal Air Regulations Part 77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given point around an airport. The extent of the off -airport coverage that needs to be evaluated for tall structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility. In addition, Federal Air Regulations Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports will be considered obstructions i n navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) ( 7 USC Section 136, et seq.) was originally passed in 1947. It has been amended several times, most extensively in 1972 and in 1996 by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, and in 2012 by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act. The purpose of FIFRA is to establish federal jurisdiction over the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. It also gives EPA the authority to study th e effects of pesticide use. Other key provisions of FIFRA require pesticide applicators to pass a licensing examination for status as “qualified applicators,” create a review and registration process for new pesticide products, and ensure thorough and understandable labeling that includes instructions for use.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) – Safe Transport of Hazardous Materials.
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation between states under Title 49 CFR Chapter 1, Part 100 -185 . Within California, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol enforce federal law. Together, these agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and specifications for container types to be used.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With respect to emergency planning, FEMA is responsible for ensuring the establishment and development of policies and programs for emergency management at the federal, State, and local levels. Enforcement of these laws and regulations is delegated to State and local environmental regulatory agencies.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 1976 federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non- hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the origination to their final disposal in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facili ties. The 1984 RCRA amendments provide the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to ensure that the
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-58
stored material will not corrode the tanks. Owners and operators of USTs had until December 1998 to meet the new tank standards.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for, and respond to, failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.
State
California Health and Safety Code. CalEPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardou s wastes. HSC Section 25531, et seq., incorporate s the requirement of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials. H SC Section 25534 directs facility owners storing or handling acutely hazardous materials in reportable quantities to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP must be submitted to the appropriate local authorities, the designated local administering agency, and the EPA for review and approval.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Co ntrol District. The S JVACPD has regulations that require compliance with the asbestos demolition and renovation requirements developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M. (San Joaquin Valley Pollution Control District Asbestos Bulletin, 2012).
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical deve lopment of the city. The following objectives and policies related to hazards are presented in the General Plan:
• Policy PU -3-d: Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided. • Policy PU -3-f: Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property ac cess to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.
• Policy NS-4-h: Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with Fresno County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.
• Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters. • Policy NS-6-d: Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-59
City of Fresno Municipal Code. Chapter 10, Article 14 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code pertains to th e recovery of expenses associated with hazardous spills. Specifically, this section states that “Any person causing a release or threatened release which results in an emergency action shall be liable to the City of Fresno for the recoverable costs resulting from the emergency action.” City of Fresno Emergency Operation Plan. The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an emergency plan for emergencies that are natural or caused by man. The City’s adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) plans for emergencies including natural hazards. The EOP does not designate any evacuation routes within the Planning Area.
County of Fresno Multi ‐Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to human life and property resulting from hazards. A local hazard mitigation plan recognizes risks before they occur, as well as identifies resources, information, and strategies for emergency response. Fresno County, w ith participation from 17 jurisdictions, is the lead agency on the Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ( LHMP). In 2018, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors adopted the L HMP, which includes a Fresno Annex listing information that pertains to the City in the areas of health, infrastructure, housing, government, environment, and land use.
Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is in existence to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensurin g that orderly development, and prevention of excessive noise and safety hazards around public use airports is followed in accordance to state and local laws. ALUCs establish the policies on land uses around the airport, ensuring they are compatible with airport operations. This is done on an advisory basis. ALUCs also evaluate the compatibility of proposed local agency land use policy actions with the relevant provisions within the associated ALUCP.
They review individual development projects to ensure they are within the noise and safety standards, in accordance with state laws and the ALUCP, within the review area of influence of the airport the project is located in
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Small quantities of hazardous materials may be used in conjunction with construction of and the proposed residential use itself. Such hazardous materials could include solvents, paints, stains, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides. T hese materials would be limited in type and quantity and would not be different from household chemicals and solvents already being used in households throughout the vicinity and the City . Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.9.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-60
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would utilize ty pical household materials such as solvents, paints, and chemicals used for cleaning, maintenance and landscaping and would be required to be handled in compliance with federal, State, and local laws. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Mountain View Elementary, approximately 0.61-mile to the west. Also see responses to items a) and b) above.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project does not involve land that is listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to G C Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Depa rtment of Toxic Substances Control.
There will be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project site is located outside of all of the identified airport protection zones within the Fresno County ALUCP and is slightly more than four miles north of Fresno -Yosemite International Airport; therefore, there will be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves a general plan amendment, a rezone, a planned development, and a conditional use permit for the construction and development of a residential subdivision. The residential subdivision would provide one point of access from East Alluvial Avenue. The Project would also provide an emergency access during construction at the west end of the site that provides access to the abutting hospice property. Construction traffic associated with the Project would be minimal and temporary. Operational traffic will consist of vehicle trips associated with residential development. Temporary road closures, detours, or lane diversions may be necessary for connection of utilities and development of residential streets during construction. Disturbances to traffic patterns, such as a potential lane diversion will be temporary and minimal in nature, as there will be alternate routes available. Such construction traffic would require preparation and compliance with a Traffic Control Plan in compliance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, Project-related impacts to
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-61
emergency evacuation routes or emergency response routes on local roadways would be considered less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the northeast portion of the City of Fresno, an urbanized setting approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the nearest State Responsibility Area (SRA)2 and approximately 26.4 miles southwest of the nearest very high fire hazard severity zo ne.3 The Project site would be served by the City of Fresno for its fire protection needs and the City of Fresno Fire Department would include conditions of approval requir ing the Project to incorporate certain design features to accommodate fire access. The impact would be less than significant.
2 (CAL FIRE n.d.)
3 (CAL FIRE n.d.)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-62
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Baseline Conditions
The City of Fresno overlies the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (SJV Basin). The Kings Subbasin underlies Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties and has a surface area of 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles). The Kings Subbasin has not been adjudicated. The Department of Water Resources classified the Kings Basin as being in a state of critical overdraft in its Bulletin 118-80. 4 4 (State of California Department of Water Resources n.d.) □ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ □
□ □ n
□ □ □
□ □ n
□ □ □
□ □ n
□ □ □
4.10.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-63
The SJV Basin comprises the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California and is bounded to the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges.
The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the SJV Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium -granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and to the west by the Delta -Mendota and Westside Subbasins. The Kings Subbasin is bounded to the south by the northern boundary of the Empire Wes t Side Irrigation District, the southern fork of the Kings River, the southern boundary of the Laguna Irrigation District, the northern boundary of the Kings County Water District, and the western boundary of Stone Corral Irrigation District.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Clean Water Act. See Section 4.4.2.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. See Section 4.4.2.
Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. This SDWA focuses on all waters either designed or potentially designed for drinking water use, whether from surface water or groundwater sources. The SDWA and subsequent amendments authorized the EPA to establish health-based standards, or maximum contaminant leve ls (MCLs), for drinking water to protect public health against both natural and anthropogenic contaminants. All owners or operators of public water systems are required to comply with these primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these primary standards for the EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary (nuisance -related) standards. At the federal level, the EPA administers the SDWA and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, organic, inorganic, and radiological constituents (42 USC and 40 CFR). At the state level, California has adopted its own SDWA, which incorporates the federal SDWA standards with some other requirements specific only to California (HSC Section 116350, et seq.)
The 1996 SDWA amendments established source water assessment programs pertaining to untreated water from rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater aquifers used for drinking water supply. According to these amendments, the EPA must consider a detailed risk and cost assess ment, as well as best available peer-reviewed science, when developing standards for drinking water. These programs are the foundation of protecting drinking water resources from contamination and avoiding costly treatment to remove pollutants. In Californ ia, the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program fulfills these federal mandates. The Division of Drinking Water of the State Water Resources Control Board is the primary agency for developing and implementing the DWSAP program, and is responsible for performing the assessments of existing groundwater sources.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, which became Division 7 of the California Water Code, authorized the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters through water allocation and water quality protection. The SWRCB implements the requirement of the CWA Section 303, which states that water quality standards must be established for certain waters through the adoption of water quality control plans under the Porter -
4.10.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-64
Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibilities and authorities of the nine RWQCBs, which include preparing water quality plans within the regions, identifying water quality objectives, and instituting waste discharge requirements. Water quality objectives are defined as limits or levels of water quality constituents and characteristics established for reasonable protection of beneficial uses or prevention of nuisance. Beneficial uses consist of all the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Porter-Cologne Act was later amended to provide the authority delegated from the EPA to issue NPDES permits regulating discharges to Waters of the United States.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. On September 16, 2014, a three -bill legislative package was signed into law comp rising AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplish ed locally". SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with the potential for State intervention if necessary to protect the resource. The act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally based management plans. The groundwater basin that serves Fresno has been designated by the Department of Water Resources as high- priority and subject to a conditi on of critical overdraft.
North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The North Kings GSA is a Joint Powers Authority formed in December 2016 through adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement by the following public agencies:
Fresno Irrigation District, the County of Fresno, the City of Fresno, the City of Clovis, the City of Kerman, Biola Community Services District, Garfield Water District, and International Water District. Following adoption, these founding members approved membership of Bakman Water Compa ny and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District through separate binding agreements. The North Kings GSA’s jurisdiction includes a portion of the Kings Subbasin that includes the service areas of member agencies consistent with requirements of SGMA.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of policies and programs that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. The following objectives and policies related to hydrology and water quality are presented in various elements of the General Plan:
• Policy POSS -6-b: Effects of Stormwater Discharge. Support efforts to identify and mitigate cumulative adverse effects on aquatic life from stormwater discharge to the San Joaquin River. o Avoid discharge of runoff from urban uses to the San Joaquin River or other riparian corridors.
o Approve development on sites having drainage (directly or indirectly) to the San Joaquin River or other riparian areas only upon a finding that adequate measures for preventing pollution of natural bodies of water from their runoff will be implemented. o Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas.
Institute remedial measures promptly if unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur. • Policy PU -7-a: Reduce Wastewate r. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.
• Policy PU -8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-65
• Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long -range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
• Objective RC-6. Ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water. • Policy RC -6-c: Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land us e and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025.
• Policy RC-6-h: Conditions of Approval. Include in the Development Code standards for imposing conditions of approval for development projects to ensure long -term maintenance of adequate clean water resources. Require findings that adequate water supply must exist prior to any discretionary project approval for residential and commercial development requiring annexation, as required by law.
• Objective RC -7. Promote water conservation through standards, incentives and capital investments.
• Policy RC -7-b: Water Pricing and Metering. Develop a tiered water cost structure for both residential and commercial users that will properly price water based on its true cost; require all new development to be metered for water use; and charge all customers the true, full cost of their water supply, including costs of acquisition, initial treatment, conveyance, wastewater treatment, operations, maintenance, and remediation.
• Policy RC -7-c: Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City facilities and all new private development to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.
• Policy RC -7-d: Update Standards for New Development. Continue to refine water saving and conservation standards for new development.
• Policy RC-7-f: Implementation and Update Conservation Program. Continue to implement the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program, as may be updated, and periodically update restrictions on water uses, such as lawn and landscape watering and the filling of fountains and swimming pools, and penalties for violations. Evaluate the feasibility of a 2035 conservation target of 190 gpcd in the next comprehensive update of the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program. • Policy RC -7-h: Landscape Water Conservation Standards. Refine landscape wa ter conservation standards that will apply to new development installed landscapes, building on the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and other State regulations. o Evaluate and apply, as appropriate, augmented xeriscape, “water -wise,” and “gre en gardening” practices to be implemented in public and private landscaping design and maintenance.
o Facilitate implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by developing alternative compliance measures that are easy to understand and observe. • Objective NS -3. Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding and stormwater runoff hazards.
• Policy NS -3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Support the full implementation of the [Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District] FMFCD Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, the completion of planned flood control and drainage system facilities, and the continued maintenance of stormwater and flood water retention and conveyance facilities and capacities. Work with the FMFCD to make sure that its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-66
• Policy NS-3-b: Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to install curbin g, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
• Policy NS -3-e: Pollutants. Work with FMFCD to prevent and reduce the exis tence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act.
• Policy NS -3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.
City of Fresno Municipal Code. The City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (FMC Chapter 6, Article 7) establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. Its purpose is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA by redu cing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.
The Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance (FMC Chapter 11, Article 6) establishes methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste dischar ge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Surface runoff from the Project will be accommodated by an existing ponding facility located northwest of the Project. In compliance with State regulations, all development within the Project site would be required to comply with State regulations adopted to reduce groundwater degradation, including preparation of a SWPPP for projects that exceed specified size limits.
The Project would be required to obtain approval of its SWPPP prior to construction. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significa nt impact through implementation of planned Project design features compliance with the requirements of the FMFCD, and through compliance with adopted SWPPP regulations. The impact would be less than significant.
4.10.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-67
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed 28-unit development is within the City’s water service a rea.
According to the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), residential land uses would consume approximately 198 gallons per capita per day . The Project would increase water consumption by approximately 19 acre-feet per year. To determine whether the increase is significant, a comparison to the supplies and demands of the General Plan land uses, and whether the increase would result in a deficit or exacerbate an existing or planned deficit.
Table 4-18: Comparison of Water Demand of Existing and Proposed Planned Land Uses Comparison of Water Demand of Existing and Proposed Planned Land Uses General Plan
Land Use Dwelling Units Average
Household Size Population
Gallons
Per Capita
Per Day
(GPCD)
Gallons
Per Day
(GPD)
Acre-Feet
Per Year
(AFY)
Low Density
Residential
(Existing)
10 3.07 30.7 198 6,078.6 6.81
Medium Density
Residential
(Proposed)
28 3.07 85.96 198 17,020.1 19.06
Table 4-19: Review of Project Water Demand Impacts through 2045 Review of Project Water Demand Impacts through 2045
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Planned Supply 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
Planned Demand 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
plus Project 19 19 19 19 19
Total Demand 199,223 212,775 222,329 231,895 241,466
Surplus/(Deficit) 129,807 128,365 124,281 120,105 115,866 Significant
Impact? No No No No No
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 7-1
It is expected that the City would encounter dry years and, in worst case, multiple dry years. Below is an analysis of the City’s water supply, and its surpluses, with or without the Project. As depicted below in Table 4-20, the Project would not cause a water supply deficit during multiple dry years.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-68
Table 4-20: Review of Project Water Demand Impacts during Drought Conditions through 2045 Review of Project Water Demand Impacts during Drought Conditions through 2045 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Existing 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008
Existing
plus
Project
74,540 66,528 62,444 58,268 54,027
Second Year
Existing 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909
Existing
plus
Project
75,441 67,429 63,345 59,169 54,928
Third Year
Existing 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Existing
plus
Project
27,320 29,490 30,861 32,234 33,608
Fourth Year
Existing 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Existing
plus
Project
27,320 29,490 30,861 32,234 33,608
Fifth Year
Existing 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123
Existing
plus
Project
115,655 107,643 103,559 99,383 95,142
Significant Impact? No No No No No
Source: 2020 UWMP Table 7-3
The Project must comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) for the construction of water, wastewater, and storm water drainage infrastructure.
In addition, the developer will be responsible for the payment of development impact fees to off -set potential impacts to regional facilities. The FMFCD has developed an urban drainage design concept that collects, drains, and retains surface water runoff for intentional groundwater recharge in ponding basins dispersed throughout the city. The Project would utilize the existing ponding basin located northwest of the Project site.
The City’s water supply derives from groundwater, imported water, surface water sources , and limited amounts of recycled water. The City anticipates increasing its surface water treatment supplies from 108,739 AFY in 2020 to 191,600 AFY in 2045.
5 The Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility was
completed in 2017 to reduce dependency on groundwater and alleviate groundwater depletion. The City’s Recycled Water Master Plan (2010) indicates the City is planning to increase and/or provide tertiary treatment of wastewater for landscape and irrigation purposes in new growth areas and existing
5 (City of Fresno 2021). UWMP Table C-3.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-69
landscaped areas throughout the City’s service area. According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City relies on surface water deliveries during normal water years and groundwater during dry years. Intentional recharge augmentation is reliable throughout all hydrologic conditions. Therefore, according to the City’s UWMP the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basi n and the City has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and its existing commitments during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain any waterways and therefore implementation of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river. However, the Project would require grading or soil exposure during construction. If not controlled, the transport of these materials via local stormwater systems into local waterways could temporarily increase sediment concentrations.
To minimize this impact, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the State Construction Genera l Permit and submittal of a SWPPP prior to start of construction activities. Mandatory compliance with State regulations would ensure that impacts from erosion and siltation would be less than significant.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located within a flood-prone area. FMFCD has stated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the Project.6 Runoff from the site will be directed to E.
Alluvial Avenue, where it will enter existing drain inlets and be conveyed via an existing pipeline to the FMFCD drainage basin west of the site. The impact would be less than significant. iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than Significant Impact.
The Project site would alter the existing drainage pattern, but the Project would direct runoff to the existing drainage basin located northwest of the Project site which has capacity to take in more runoff.
The requirement to construct onsite curb and gutter to direct drainage the existing basin would ensure impacts to be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in a flood plain, therefore it would not impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact.
6 (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-70
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
No Impact. The Project is not located within a flood zone, a flood plain, or a flood-prone area. The nearest flood zone is located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Project (see Figure 4-2). The Project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone; therefore, there would be no risk release of pollutants.
There would be no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Applicable water quality control plans for the City of Fresno are included within the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. The City is currently in compliance with all facets of the water quality control plan. The City is a member of the North Kings GSA. In accordance with SGMA , GSAs located in areas in critical overdraft are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans by 2020. The North Kings GSA adopted its plan on November 21, 2019.
The City of Fresno has several projects in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, shown in Table 4-21 as
follows.
Table 4-21: City of Fresno Groundwater Projects
Project Description Benefit Milestone
Year
Residential Water
Meter Retrofit
Project
Residential meter installation contracts commenced in 2010 and run through the end of 2012. Per capita water consumption from 2007 through 2011 averaged 277 gpcd. Per capita consumption after meters were installed, excluding the drought period of 2012-2016, averages 201 gpcd (2017 & 2018). The population at the end of 2011 was 513,358. Applying the per capita water consumption values from before and after meter installation yields a 43,600 AF reduction for the base 2011 population. 43,600
AF/yr 2015
T-3 Surface Water
Treatment Facility
Construction of a 3 MG water storage tank and 4-MGD surface water treatment facility (with possible future expansion to 8-MGD). The project will include, engineering & design, construction of tank, booster pumps, operations and treatment buildings, and associated site improvements. 2,210
AF/yr 2015
Southwest
Reclamation
Facility and
Distribution
System
This project includes the design and construction of an initial 5-MGD tertiary treatment facility and transmission and distribution system. The reclaimed water produced and distributed in the southwest region will provide a direct potable water offset, thus reducing the reliance on and use of groundwater supplies.
5,140
AF/yr 2020
Nielsen Recharge
Facility
Expand the City's groundwater recharge program and includes land acquisition, development of new recharge basins, structures and conveyance systems such as pipelines, canal turnouts, metering systems, and interties. The project goal is to optimize groundwater recharge efforts so as to balance groundwater extractions as laid out in the City's 2014 Metropolitan Water Resources Plan.
3,500
AF/yr 2020
Southeast Surface
Water Treatment
Facility
Design, construction, start-up, and commissioning of the new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF) and associated large diameter transmission mains. New facility is required to treat surface water diverted from the Kings River through canal and raw water pipeline system.
Historically, the City has largely relied on groundwater to meet municipal water demands. The SESWTF will utilize surface water supplies and permit the balanced use of both groundwater and surface water, thus greatly reducing groundwater extractions.
82,240
AF/yr 2020
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-71
Project Description Benefit Milestone
Year
Northeast Surface
Water Treatment
Facility Expansion
The NESWTF Expansion Project is part of the City's near-term program to attain and maintain the sustainable use of water resources. This project is for the 30-MGD expansion of the existing surface water treatment facility for a total capability of 60-MGD. To enable water from the expansion to reach further into the City large diameter transmission mains will also be constructed. This project will meet future growth demands and ensure groundwater utilization attains and remains at safe-yield levels. 30,840
AF/yr 2025
Southeast
Reclamation
Facility and
Distribution
System
As part of the City's long-term goal to utilize resources sustainably the development of a recycled water program will be key. This project includes design and construction of an initial 8-MGD tertiary treatment facility with transmission and distribution mains. The reclaimed water produced and distributed in the southeast region will provide a direct potable water offset, thus reducing the reliance on and use of groundwater supplies. 8,227
AF/yr 2030
A project would obstruct implementation of a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan if it prevented the development of identified projects to sustainably maintain groundwater. As the Project does not seek to develop on property identified for these groundwater management projects, the Project will therefore have a less than significant impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-72
Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Map
ISL-SSi-------
* — ■hi seam
- • ■ - r.>. Jlf> ---
~
[ i
IW* SIs
. vim | £. */ i: ;f£flfz».
MaBaE
tIK* *0)
■s
4#% ■a. C.a'ffTr **uj|| •
Q3^vt1)>4<A ft#*.
- ti ft- &
Teague Ave
l? - tn» iTT
... it;
O
Q>
-V)
«> n\ Sjj ijj.ij
sfcLTiifkjjF isssj^ •
<52
V
\y-±-c
(. •<■1 Hi: iU
I«&fc '£iXi£t\ 1.1.M
aaiJi
-tV- v.i
t: st;.ff)
ItfSOTs??*4* ■*12?t! if<vCC'.
ESI
®aj| iSilt Bjaa.'tfP1.' 1. . I.‘TUiE
—4511LL*: 1
,■. i-
Ju\:».
I ~r *1
HE?S&j 4
- _- „•
,«PP?
■ KT" '
1’ * 3
ml
Bb-i3%6gHifrl
5: * ft" "I
fjsf ?V;‘TT1- AfKi
5 11!
iiii CD'T^\u?Wp JTu “JUSrJ^£i
piLIJ! rlJ3RijTU •j '■ IPI £3y3T2 •» — —miTPtafm
dCTjS ! . •>
■ ?rv‘.-irrfT>TjZ.Cy k?,
i 2
oJ V
is rlsA
ill© Mai• '•1 iiJj
‘||| #
yi?
.ivi.
y
i'* j
‘I'mNees Ave
.-' T
E^fflas 9H €j* t.
fv-
ee-pM |ISgS|Hi EH1 (-:
jr •L rr
A*3
m
'.-yy^Cl
EHim jj - m
f - ^- /
irr.-sn <4U
:W2t{® i. O uSf.TliT 'TA'* Si •
;-rbTO*k'i'fI'2Q: -l
■sPlWK-fliwm;
,-T*5
Cv
BJSf llil!m j j
six1"1
Alluvial Ave
i
■ M ft /..JRr •1 ^USGJTrftt . I
" ’Irsr
£ Li'
> i
! I. «J M
CV !Kl'SUf
4-
T5
■i W*e1Itll: ■<.«{!•>
'm Sisaw 4|T-iiff r '}!1 'Hi -I, I
n‘S ■•
^Se@B?V
SBC*
sF^.c3. i.T: T''
m
»-> i
i
E'fJtfims:•4J 4-r n r
UI"7
hLliiiii
i • vi
' fij i sSir.f* -U I
k
11 fri
2 s
XUJlJ
^'lllllifp:
Herndon Ave
llj•t1IXi1
II
5an1*’
> Jp ----
^!?jim !Xlr'2 ,,-s* r,V-=i2«v 'Il.i* I»»-44
1 j>-
b .
Jim
_
;<«5! •/ Jfc. _
1 £ (•»/
• . :f
sfefe X Ii* ‘
jL - r/n>^Eig
s
l?*tEwSTmS
,TT
•* '.i.*,
m: ■r^xz I
r-fei
:■ .£j~
imti t fi BgiMB mr*. -?**-■*
sJ/j-
T j^
A
2^5? . v j»P?.SRE^T
|3eProject Site (3.1 Acres) Jv -
»B
Flood Zone J
DFIRM Panel Number/Date
100 Year Flood Zone (FEMA DFIRM)
____ISfpER
I
<6
Stallion Development
and Construction
PROVOST&
PRITCHARD
0 500 1,000
Feet
Date Exported: 4/5/2022 10:: \\ppeng.com\pzdata\dients\Stallion Development_xxxx\400 GlS\Map\Stallion_P s_CEQA\Stallion_P s_CEQAaprx Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-73
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-22: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by a residential subdivision to the north, a residential care facility to the west, residential lots to the south and additionally multi-family residential development to the east. Refer to Table 4-23 below for a list of existing uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning districts.
Table 4-23: Existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Direction Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Single-Family Residential Residential-Low Density RS-4 (Residential Single- Family, Medium Low Density)
South Single-Family Residential Residential RR (Rural Residential) East Multi-Family Residential Residential- Medium High
Density
RM-1 (Residential Multi-
Family, Medium High
Density)
West Residential Care Facility Residential-Low Density RS-3 (Residential Single Family, Low Density)
Applicable Regulations
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. The following objective and policies related to land use and planning are presented in the General Plan:
• Objective: UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.
• Policy UF -1-f. Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan. • Policy UF-14-a. Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian -scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos. • Policy UF -14-b. Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major roadways and pathways of □ □ n
□ □ n
4.11.1 4.11.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-74
existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul -de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area. • Objective LU-1. Establish a comprehensive citywide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create a attractive living environment.
• Objective LU-2. Plan for infill development that includes a range of h ousing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents. • Objective LU-5. Plans for a diverse housing stock that will support balanced urban growth, and make efficient use of resources and public facilities.
• Policy LU -5-c. Medium Density Residential Uses. Promote medium density residential uses to maximize efficient use of residential property through a wide range of densities. • Policy LU-5-g. Scale and Character of New Development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes. • Policy LU-11-c. General Plan Consistency. Pursue coordinated planning and development project reviews with relevant federal, State, and local public agencies to ensure consistency with this General Plan.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would develop an approximately 3.1-acre infill site in northeast Fresno adjacent to existing residential development and a care facility. The Project would not result in the removal of any existing housing. It does not propose to vacate or abandon existing rights -of-way, nor does it require dedication of additional right-of-way. The Project would not physically divide an established community, and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a new residential development consistent with the medium density residential land use designation. Potential conflicts between the Project and the General Plan and other regional plans and documents adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect could result in a potentially significant impact with regard to land use and planning.
Consistency with applicable General Plan Polices is provided in Table 4-24.
Table 4-24. Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Policy Policy Short Name Consistency Discussion
UF-1-a Diverse Neighborhoods Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project proposes to provide a diverse urban/suburban neighborhood density type.
UF-1-f
Complete Neighborhoods,
Densities, and
Development Standards
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project proposes to provide complete neighborhood design concepts that would be consistent with development standards and incorporate blending of densities within the subdivision design.
UF-14-
a
Design Guidelines for
Walkability
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project proposes to develop a bicycle and pedestrian path to provide for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment
4.11.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-75
Policy Policy Short Name Consistency Discussion
with a network of streets that offer connections to the paths for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as providing access to transit stops and roadways.
LU-5-c Medium Density
Residential Use
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project proposes a plan amendment from its current use to Medium Density Residential.
LU-5-g Scale and Character of New
Development
Consistent with this General Plan policy, the Project proposes a residential development surrounded by existing residential development.
As described, the Project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan for the City, nor any specific plan, policy, or City regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and will have a less than significant impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-76
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-25: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. Historically, Fresno County has been a leading producer of a variety of minerals including aggregate, fossil fuels, metals, and other materials used in construction or in industrial processes. Currently, aggregate and petroleum are the County’s most significant mineral resources. 7 Applicable Regulations
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs):
• M
RZ-1
: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • M
RZ-2
: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • M
RZ-3
: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. • M
RZ-4
: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.
O
f the four categories, lands classified as MRZ -2
are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ -2
areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant.” Such designations require that a Lead Agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas are to be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction
7 (County of Fresno 2000)
□ □ n
□ □ n
4.12.1 4.12.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-77
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project is loc ated in an MRZ -3 zone. The MRZ -3 zone, as discussed above, is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
Therefore, there are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the State, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Signifi cant Impact. The Project is located in an MRZ -3 zone and is not delineated on an applicable land use plan as a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. The MRZ -3 Zone, as discussed above, is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the sig nificance of which cannot be evaluated. The Project site does not contain economically -viable soils. There are no known current or historic mineral resource extraction or recovery operations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite. There would be a less than significant impact related to mineral resources.
4.12.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-78
4.13 NOISE
Table 4-26: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is a vacant lot, substantially surrounded by urban uses to all sides. Single-family residences area located to the north and west, with an apartment complex to the east. The Project is bordered to the south by E. Alluvial Avenue, which is classified as a collector street by the City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element. E. Alluvial Avenue intersects with N. Willow Avenue, an arterial street, approximately 330 feet to the east. Traffic noise from vehicles using these two major streets is presumably the primary noise source in the area, based on the aforementioned surrounding land uses.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Un
ited States Environmental Protection Agency. In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act. This act authorized the EPA to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA) during a 24
-ho
ur period of time. At 55 dBA Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn), 95 percent sentence cl arity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 f eet, with no community reaction.
However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. The EPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards. 8 8 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974)
□ □ □
□ n n
□ □ □
4.13.1 4.13.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-79
Federal Vibration Impact Standards. Vibration impact criteria included in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual 9 are used in this analysis for ground borne vibration impacts on human annoyance, as shown in Table 4-27 below. The criteria presented in Table 4-27 account for variation in project types as well as the frequency of events, which differ widely among projects. It is intuitive that when there will be fewer events per day, it should take higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response.
Table 4-27: Ground borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Land Use Category
Ground borne Vibration
Impact Levels (VdB re 1 micro-
inch/sec)
Ground borne Noise
Impact Levels (dB re 20
micro-Pascals)
Frequent Eventsa Infrequent
Eventsb
Frequent
Eventsa
Infrequent
Eventsb
Category 1: Buildings in which low ambient
vibration is essential for interior operations
(i.e., vibration-
sensitive manufacturing,
hospitals with vibration sensitive equipment,
and university research operation
65 V
dBc 65 VdBc N/A4 N/A4
Category 2: Residences and buildings in which
people normally sleep. 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 VdB 43 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime uses. 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 VdB 48 VdB
Source: FTA. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). a Frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day. b Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 70 events per day. c This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration-
sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. d Vibration- sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground borne noise. dB = decibels
dBA = A- weighted decibels
H
VAC = heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning
inch/sec = inch(es) per second
re = relative
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
This is accounted for in the criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent and infrequent events, in which the term “frequent events” is defined as more than 70 events per day.
State
T
he State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the State N oise Insulation Standard, it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single -f
amily dwellings that are
intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are found in
9 (Federal Transit Administration n.d.)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-80
the Building Standards Administrative Code and the CBC. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor -c eiling
assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. CNEL is derived from L dn, but gives additional weight to noise during sensitive hours. mentioned above, In addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard, where such units are proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.
I
n addition, Chapter 5, Section 5.507 of the California Green Building Standards Code includes nonresidential mandatory measures, which require that buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB L eq-1- ho
ur during any hour of operation shall have building, addition, or alteration exterior wall and roof-c eiling
assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 45 (or Outdoor/Indoor Transmission Class [OITC] 35) with exterior windows of a min imum STC of 40 (or OITC 30). The State has also established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses.
L
ocal
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan contains the following objectives and policies related to noise. In addition, the Noise Element sets noise standards for transportation and stationary noise sources as shown in
Table 4-28 and Table 4-29 below.
Table 4-28: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Noise-S ensitive Land Use a Outdoor Activity Areasb Interior Spaces Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dBb
Residential 65 45 -
Transient Lodging 65 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls - - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 - 45
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
a Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. b As determined for a typical worst- case hour during periods of use
Table 4-29: Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
a The Planning and Development Director, on a case- by- case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-s ensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. b As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is 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 five dB.
Leq = Average noise level sampled over a given period of time
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-81
• Objective NS-1. Protect the citizens of the City from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise.
• Policy NS-1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise -sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the pr operty line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties. • Policy NS-1-b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and condition- ally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2. • Policy NS-1-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS -1-a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 as conditions of permit approval. • Policy NS-1-f: Performance Standards. Implement performance standards for no ise reduction for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dB Ldn or CNEL, as shown on Figure NS-3: Future Noise Contours, or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Tables 9-2 and Policies NS-1-a through NS-1-c.
• Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Façades with substantial weight and insulation;
o Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; o Installation of sound -rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
o Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; o Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.
• Policy 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 NS -1-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. • Policy NS-1-m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise-sensitive land uses. • Policy NS-1-n: Best Available Technology. Require new noise sources to use best available control technology to minimize noise emissions.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-82
• Policy 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.
City of Fresno Municipal Code : The following FMC regulations further regulate noise within City limits:
• SEC. 10 -102. Definitions. (b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all -e ncompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen minutes, withou t inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made. Where the ambient noise level is less than that designated in this section, however, the noise level specified herein shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.
Table 4-30: Ambient Noise Levels
District Time Sound Level Decibels
Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
• SEC. 10-105. Excessive Noise Prohibited. No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
o Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. o Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound. o Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. o Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess o f standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. Construction noise generated from the Project would typically occur intermittently and vary depending upon the nature or phase (e.g., demolition, land clearing, grading,
4.13.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-83
excavation, erection) of construction. Noise produced by construction equipment such as earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators can reach high levels. Generally, the grading phase of construction involves the most equipment and generates the highest noise levels, although noise ranges are usually similar across all construction phases. Typical construction equipment noise levels are provided in
Table 4-31. As shown, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment generally range from approximately 77 dBA to 90 dBA L max at 50 feet. Typical operating cycles vary by equipment type and specific activity, although cycles generally involve two minutes of full power, followed by three to four minutes at lower settings. Depending on the equipment required and duration of use, average
-h
ourly noise levels associated with construction activity typically ranges from roughly 65 to 90 dBA L eq at 50 feet. The highest noise levels are generally associated with grading and excavation phases.
T
able 4-31: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Lmax) 50 feet from Source Backhoe/Front-End Loader 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer Truck 85
Dozer 85
Grader 85
Excavator/ Scraper 85
Air Compressor 80
Gradall (Forklift) 85
Generator 82
Truck (Dump/Flat Bed 84
Paver 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006) Implementation of the Project would include construction of a 28-unit development, as well as ancillary infrastructural improvements such as water delivery and wastewater conveyance pipelines.
F
MC Section 10
-10
9 exempts from the City’s noise regulations the construction, repair, or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.
T
hus, although development activities associated with buildout of the Project could potentially result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, construction activity would be exempt from City of Fresno noise regulations, as long as such acti vity is conducted pursuant to an applicable construction permit and occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., excluding Sunday.
Therefore, short
-t
erm construction impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.
O
peration of the Project would include vehicles traversing the site to parking areas, solid waste vehicles service, and human voices. Noise levels generated by these activities are expected to be minimal and consistent with existing surrounding development. Concrete masonry walls, including both existing walls and others to be installed by the Project, would further reduce Project-related noise impacts. Therefore, operational impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-84
of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards o f other agencies would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. During grading and site preparation there is potential for construction equipment to generate ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels that could affect property adjacent to the Project site. There are various single- and multifamily dwellings located adjacent to the proposed developmen t, some of which have swimming pool structures in their respective backyards. In addition, to the west is a hospice facility. Nearby residents could potentially be impacted by ground borne noise or vibration during construction activities. However, constru ction activities will be short-term, temporary in nature, and limited to daytime hours. Furthermore, the Project site has frontage on E. Alluvial Avenue , an existing source of vehicular noise. The GP PEIR found that construction-related ground borne noise could cause an impact when construction occurs within 25 feet of existing structures. Habitation of the residential units would not result in the production of long-term ground borne noise or vibration levels, and the inhabitants of the proposed development would not be exposed to excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels since there are no known stationary sources in the vicinity. With implementation of PEIR NOI-2, as presented in the GP PEIR, which would prohibit the use of heavy construction within 25 feet of existing structures, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where s uch 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? No Impact. The Project is located more than four miles west of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and is located outside of all of the identified airport protection zones within the Fresno County ALUCP.
There would be no impact.
Mitigation
PEIR NOI-2 The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.
4.13.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-85
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-32: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
Sample, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Baseline Conditions
The existing site contains no residential dwelling units and is vacant. Single-family residences lie to the north and west, with an apartment complex to the east.
Applicable Regulations
There are no applicable regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with mineral resources that are applicable to the Project.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The 3.10-acre property is currently planned for a maximum of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The Housing Element estimates household size in the City of Fresno at 3.07 persons, providing a total planned population of approximately 33 persons. Through a change to the planned land use and zoning, the Project would develop 14 duplexes for a total of 28 residential units, which would accommodate a population of approximately 86 persons. The 2035 Fresno General Plan estimated a population buildout of 970,000 persons in 2056. However, a 2019 Fresno COG growth projection analysis, revised in 2021 and using a 0.7% annual growth rate, estimates the C ity’s population at approximately 728,200 persons by 2050.10 Further extrapolation would likely bring this population to 759,325 in 2056.
The amount of growth proposed by the Project, which may come from within or without the city limits, is less than 0.00 1 percent. Such growth is not considered substantial in Fresno or the region, and is consistent with the assumed growth rates in the General Plan. The Project would not include upsizing of offsite infrastructure or roadways. The installation of new infrastructure would be limited to what is
10 (Applied Development Economics 2021)
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.14.1 4.14.2
4.14.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-86
necessary to connect the Project to the existing offsite utilities. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project proposes a residential development on vacant land. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and thus there would be no impact
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-87
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-33: Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located north of E. Alluvial Avenue and west of N. Willow Avenue. It consists of 3.1 acres of vacant property. The Project site is served by Fresno City Fire Department Station 13, Clovis Unified School District, and the City of Fresno Northeast Policing District.
Applicable Regulations
Fire Department. The City of Fresno Fire Department (Fire Department) provides fire suppression, fire prevention, hazardous material mitigation, rescue, and emergency medical services to an area of approximately 115 square miles with service to the City of Fresno, the Fig Garden Fire District, and Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Contract services continued to the residents of the North Central Fire Protection District in the northwest area of the City.
City of Fresno General Plan. Public Utilities and Services Element Objective PU-2. Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.
• PU-2-a: Unify Fire Protection. Pursue long-r ange transfer of fire protection service agreements with adjacent fire districts that, in concert with existing automatic aid agreements, will lead to the eventual unification of fire protection services in the greater Fresno area. • PU-2-b: Maintain Ab ility. Strive to continually maintain the Fire Department’s ability to provide staffing and equipment resources to effectively prevent and mitigate emergencies in existing and
4.15.1 4.15.2
□□ □□□□
□ □ □□□□
□ □ □□□□
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-88
new high- rise buildings and in other high- density residential and commercial dev elopment throughout the city.
• PU-2-c: Rescue Standards. Develop appropriate standards, as necessary, for rescue operations, including, but not limited to, confined space, high angle, swift water rescues, and the unique challenges of a high speed train corridor.
• PU-2-d: Station Siting. Use the General Plan, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans, the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, and a fire station location program to achieve optimum siting of future fire stations. • PU-2-e: Service Standards. Strive to achieve a community wide risk management plan that include the following service level objectives 90 percent of the time:
o First Unit on Scene – First fire unit arriving with minimum of three firefighters within 5 minutes and 20 seconds from the time the unit was alerted to the emergency incident. o Effective Response Force – Provide sufficient number of firefighters on the scene of an emergency within 9 minutes and 20 seconds from the time of unit alert to arrival. The effective response force is measured as 15 firefighters for low risk fire incidents and 21 firefighters for high risk fire incidents and is the number of personnel necessary to complete specific tasks required to contain and control fire minimizing loss of life and property.
• Objective PU-3: Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.
• Policy PU-3-a: Fire Prevention Inspections. Develop strategies to enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multi- family residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self-certification program. • Policy PU-3-b: Reduction Strategies. Develop community risk reduction strategies that target high service demand areas, vulnerable populations (e.g. young children, older adults, non -English speaking residents, persons with disabilities, etc.), and high life hazard occupancies. • Policy PU-3-c: Public Education Strategies. Develop strategies to re-establish and enhance routine public education outreach to all sectors of the community. • Policy PU -3-d: Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided. • Policy PU-3-e: Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities. • Policy PU -3-f: Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.
• Policy PU-3-g: Cost Recovery. Continue t o evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.
Police Department. The City of Fresno Police Department (Police Department) provides a full range of police services, including uniformed patrol response to calls for service, crime prevention, and tactical crime enforcement (such as gang/violent crime suppression), as well as traffic enforcement/accident prevention.
Other services and special units include the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit (EOD), Internal Affairs, the K9 Unit, horse -mounted Mounted Patrol, Skywatch, Specialized Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), and the
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-89
Records Bureau. The Department consists o f four divisions: The Support Division, the Investigations Division, the Patrol Division, and the Administration Division.
Schools: Clovis Unified School District ( CUSD) serves the north ern, northeastern, and eastern areas of Fresno as well as much of the City of Clovis and nearby rural areas to the north and east . CUSD currently serves 42,795 students at 53 schools11 and has experienced significant growth necessitating the expansion of facilities over the past decade.
Senate Bill 50: SB 50 provided a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program by, among other methods, authorizing a $9.2 billion school facilities bond issue, school construction cost containment provisions, and an eight-year suspension of the Mira, Hart, and Murrieta court cases. The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and reinstate the school facility fee cap for legislative actions (e.g., general plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments) as was allowed under the Mira, Hart, and Murrieta court cases. According to GC Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” These provisions are in effect and will remain in place as long as subsequent state bonds are approved and available.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located within the boundaries of the Fresno City Fire Department Station 13 Service Area. Fire Station 13 is located at 815 E. Nees Avenue, 2.6 miles northwest of the project. The Fresno Fire Department reviewed the Project and determined that it can adequately serve it. Additional Fire service requirements for development of the Project will include installation of public fire hydrants and maintaining one means of emergency access during all phases of construction.
Payment of impact fees for fire facilities is a requirement prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact.
ii. Police Protection:
Less than Significant Impact. The Fresno Police Department has five policing districts. The Project is serviced by the Northeast Fresno Police Department located at 1450 E . Teague Avenue, 2.4 miles northwest of the project. No new police protection facili ties would be required to serve the area.
Payment of impact fees for police facilities is a requirement prior to issuance of building permits. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools:
11 (Clovis Unified School District n.d.)
4.15.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-90
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is served by the Clo vis Unified School District. Based on the location of the Project and students’ grade level, students would attend the following schools:
Table 4-34. Nearby Public Schools
School Grades Address Distance from
Project
Mountain View Elementary
School
K-6 2002 E. Alluvial Ave. 0.67 mile west
Granite Ridge Intermediate 7-8 2770 E. International Avenue 2.9 miles north Clovis North High School 9-12 2770 E. International Avenue 2.9 miles north Correspondence from CUSD dated May 31, 202212 indicates that all three schools have sufficient capacity to serve the project. Pursuant to SB 50, the Project would be required to pay school fees to accommodate the impact of project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. iv. Parks:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is served by the City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS) Department. The closest park to the project is Bob Belcher/Dog Park located at 2158 E . Alluvial Avenue, 0.61 miles west of the Project .13 Using the City of Fresno’s average household size of 3.07 and the proposed 28 units, the Project has the potential to generate 86 persons to the Project area. 14 These 86 persons could utilize the nearby parks. Although the nearby parks have the potential to be used by the new people generated from the Project, the additional people are not expected to significantly impact the parks resul ting in the need for new facilities. The Project would be required to pay development impact fees towards the development of the Project’s fair share of park space. Impacts would be less than significant
v. Other public facilities:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project build-out will result in an additional 28 multi-family residences and a corresponding projected population increase of 86 residents. The Project population growth represents a 0.001 percent increase in the 2020 population. Payment of applicable development-related impact fees would ensure impacts would be less than significant.
12 (Central Unified School District 2022).
13 (City of Fresno n.d.)
14 (United States Census Bureau 2021)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-91
4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-35: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is served by the City of Fresno PARCS. The City maintains approximately 1,617 acres of open space and nearly 230,000 square feet of building space dedicated to recreational/educational purposes distributed among 104 sites. Other facilities include nine community pools, four splash parks, 518 picnic tables, 153 barbeque grills, three amphitheaters, 54 baseball/softball fields, 53 football/soccer fields, 40 basketball courts, 11 volleyball courts, 40 tennis courts, 7 skate parks, and 5 dog parks. The park system also provides and maintains 115 acres of paths and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. 15 There are multiple parks within a two -mile radius. These parks include Lennar Park, Maple Alluvial Park, Belcher Park, Selma Layne Park, and East Rotary Park. The closest park to the Project is Bob Belcher Park located 0.61 miles to the west.
Applicable Regulations
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan contains the following objectives and policies related to recreation:
• Policy POSS -2-C. Review of Development Applications. Coordinate review of all development applications (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps) in order to implement the parks and open space standards of this Plan.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
15 (City of Fresno n.d.)
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.16.1 4.16.2
4.16.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-92
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate more residents than what is currently planned.
The 2035 General Plan desires a regional parks acreage of 2.0 acres per 1,000 population , and pocket, neighborhood, and community park acreage of 3.0 acres per 1,000, for a total of 5.0 acres pe r 1,000 population. The General Plan segments sectors of the City into 12 different areas, with the Project site located in “Established Neighborhoods North of Shaw”, an area east of State Route 99 and to the west side of N. Willow Avenue. The Parks Master Plan identifies this area as having a 2035 population of 167,777, with a total of 683 acres of regional, open space, and special use parks (“large parks”). With a large parks goal of 2.0 acres per 1,000 people, a total of 335 acres of open space would be needed for the Established Neighborhoods North of Shaw Avenue region, thus there is a surplus amount of planned park space of approximately 348 acres. The Project proposes to construct a 28-unit development, which would generate 86 persons. Despite the increase in demand for parks, existing regional planned park space is sufficient and the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Table 4-36. Planned Park Demand, Existing and Proposed
Planned
Population
Planned Park Acres Parks Ratio
Large Small Large Small
Existing 167,777 683 220 4.07 1.31
Existing + Project 167,832 683 220 4.07 1.31
General Plan Goal 2.00 3.00
Goal Met? Yes No
The Established Neighborhoods North of Shaw sector, in which the Project is located, currently does not meet the General Plan goal of pocket, neighborhood, and community parks (“small parks”) of 3.0 acres per 1,000. The Parks Master Plan states this area has planned park space at a ratio of 1.31 per 1,000 residents. Implementation of the Project would increase demand on local parks by 0.11 acres , or approximately 4,800 square feet. The Project proposes to construct a common area open space of 5,700 square feet, or 0.13 acres, therefore the Project’s additional demand on parks can be adequately addressed through the Project’s on- site common open space . Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay its fair share towards park space through the payment of Quimby Act fees. Impacts to small parks would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project currently consists of vacant land within an urbanized setting. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities; therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-93
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-37: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)??
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site consists of a vacant lot on the north side of E. Alluvial Avenue, a collector street with a right-of-way of 98 feet.
Applicable Regulations
City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan. The City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), adopted in March 2017, provides a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in Fresno. The ATP supersedes the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan that was adopted in 2010. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that serves all residents of Fresno. This plan lays out specific goals to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity in Fresno.
These goals include the following:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; • Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities; • Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and, • Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.
City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines. The City has established general procedures and requirements for the preparation of traffic impact studies associated with development within the City of Fresno. The guidelines include, but are not limited to, discussion of study areas of traffic impact studies, the use of level of service (LOS) as a metric for determining impacts, traffic analysis scenarios, traffic counts, and trip generation.
City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. In June 2020, the City adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines to address the shift from delay-based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses, as required by SB 743. Th is document serves as a detailed guideline for □ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.17.1 4.17.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-94
preparing VMT analyses consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Project applicants will be required to follow the guidance provided in the City’s document for preparation of CEQA VMT analysis. The document includes the following:
• Definition of region for VMT analysis;
• Standardized screening methods for VMT threshold compliance data; • Recommendations for appropriate VM T significance thresholds for development projects, transportation projects, and plans; and
• Feasible mitigation strategies applicable for development projects, transportation projects, and plans
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordin ance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct 28 single-story multifamily dwelling units, which would generate 12 and 15 pea k AM and peak PM trips, respectively, to the circulation network.
The Department of Public Works determined that the Project impacts to the transportation network would screen out of a Traffic Impact Study. The Project would be required to construct its fair share of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Given that the Project would pay its fair share towards transportation impact fees, including to major streets and traffic signals, the Project would have a less than significant impact to plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of LOS. VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a sign ificant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.
Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.” On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018
4.17.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-95
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects stat es that if a project includes a General Plan Amendment or a Rezone, none of the screening criteria may apply, and that the City must evaluate such projects on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the Project includes both a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone. Accordingly, a quantitative VMT analysis is required.
The thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.
The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional thresholds set by the Fresno COG. For residential projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that do not result in at least a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by 13% or more are considered to have a less than significant impact.
Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by residential projects having 500 or fewer dwelling units, including the proposed Project, are determined using the COG VMT Calculator Tool (see sections
4.3.1 and 4.3.2 on page 26 of the Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled, June 25, 2020.
The Fresno COG VMT Calculator Tool indicated the Transportation Analysis Zone in which this Project is located would generate 11.1 VMT per capita. As the City’s established VMT threshold is 14.01 VMT per capita, the Project’s impact to vehicle miles traveled is less than the 13% minimum threshold, resulting in a less than significant impact.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes an internal circulation system consistent with the standards of the City of Fresno Public Works Department. The Project proposes three internal segments of 27-foot-wide circulation corridor oriented at right angle s to one another and providing access to all units within the development. It would therefore not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or introduce incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes one additional drive approach along East Alluvial Avenue. No drive approaches would be removed. The Project site would comply with all access requirements of the Fresno Fire Department. The Project is not located near a fire station facility where additional congestion could obstruct fire apparatus from leaving its station. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-96
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-38: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Baseline Conditions
PRC Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of Assembly Bill 52) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. T ribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.
GC Section 65352.3, et seq. (codification of Senate Bill 18) requires that prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes of the opportunity to conduct consultation for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government's jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed plan adoption or □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.18.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-97
amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they are notified unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3. and GC Section 65352.3, the City of Fresno has received letters from the Dumna Wo Wah and Table Mountain Rancheria of California Tribal Governments officially requesting notification. Formal notification was sent to these tribes on June 22, 2022 . No responses have been received.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System
A records search from the SSJVIC CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in March 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeolo gical and built- environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the CHL, the CRHR, the NRHP, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ¼-mile radius.
Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C: Cultural Resources).
Additional sources included the OHP Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Native American Heritage Commission – Sacred Lands File Search The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native Am erican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. The NAHC was contacted in May 2022. NAHC was provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location and a request to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act. See Section 4.5.2.
State
California Register of Historical Resources. See Section 4.5.2.
California Environmental Quality Act. See Section 4.5.2.
State Health and Safety Code. See Section 4.5.2.
California Government Code 65352.3-5: Local Government-Tribal Consultation. See Section
4.5.2. 4.18.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-98
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The General Plan contains the following objective and policies related to tribal cultural resources:
• Policy HCR-2-d: Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community -at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.
City of Fresno Municipal Code
Historic Preservation Ordinance. See Section 4.5.2.
Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, fea ture, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significa nt pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Sacred Lands Search was conducted by NAHC and the results were negative for the presence on of known cultural resources. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area that are unrecorded and/or unknown.
Pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, the tribes have 30 days to request consultation with the lead agency and 90 days to comment, respectively, regarding potential effects to tribal resources. Although the Cultural Resource records searches for the Project did not find any evidence of resources deemed of cultural value to a California Native American tribe, pursuant to SB 18, Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC on June 22, 2022. Each tribe’s 30-day window to request consultation under AB 52 will vary based upon the date the tribe received notification . The 90-day time period for tribes to comment pursuant to SB 18 is based on the date notice was mailed and will expire on September 23, 2022.
There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks according to SSJVIC CHRIS Records Search Results dated March 7, 2022. ( Appendix C)
4.18.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-99
Less than significant impacts, with mitigation incorporated, to tribal resources are expected. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and PEIR CUL-3, described above in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, are recommended in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.
Mitigation
TCR-1 See CUL-1 above.
TCR-2 See PEIR CUL-3 above.
4.18.4 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-100
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-39: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located on the north side of E. Alluvial Avenue, east of N. Willow Avenue. Utilities are located in the Project’s Alluvial Avenue frontage.
Water Supply
The City relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin; surface water from Central Valley Project, through a contract with the U nited States Bureau of Reclamation; Kings River water, through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District; and recycled water. The City has three surface water treatment facilities that provide approximately half of all potable water demands in the service area.
The City lies within the Kings Sub-basin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, and extracts approximately 40% of water to meet its demands from this underground aquifer. Historically, the groundwater levels in the Fresno area have declined from less than 0.5 feet per year in the southwest portion of the downtown area, to a rate of 1.5 feet per year for northern and southern areas of town, to a maximum of three (3) feet per year in the northeastern area. With the reduced pumping due to surface water usage, groundwater levels increased in certain areas of the City since 2016. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ n
□ □ □
4.19.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-101
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The City of Fresno owns and maintains the majority of the wastewater collection systems that convey wastewater to the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF). Wastewater would be collected via City maintained sewer lines and transmitted to facilities operated by the City’s Department of Public Utilities. The Project will be served by the RWRF, which has a permitted capacity of 68 million gallons per day (mgd) average monthly flow.16
Landfills
Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the American Avenue Sanitary Landfill, located in Kerman, CA. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards, with last reported remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards. The landfill has an estimated closure date for August 2031. 17 Applicable Regulations
Federal
Clean Water Act
The primary goals of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC Sections 1251, et seq. are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s wat ers and to make all surface waters fishable and swimmable. The CWA forms the basic national framework for the management of water quality and the control of pollutant discharges. The CWA sets forth a number of objectives in order to achieve the above- mentioned goals. The CWA objectives include regulating pollutant and toxic pollutant discharges; providing for water quality which protects and fosters the propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife; developing waste treatment management plans; and developing and implementing programs for the control of non -point sources pollution. The NPDES permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating stormwater discharges into the waters of the United States.
California has an approved state NPDES program. The EPA has delegated authority for water permitting to the SWRCB, which has nine regional boards.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA establishes standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. Contaminants regulated by the SDWA include metals, nitrates, asbestos, total dissolved solids, and microbes.
National Flood Insurance Program
As described by FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program aims to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures. It does so by providing affordable insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. These efforts help mitigate the effects of flooding on new and improved structures. Overall, the program reduces the socio- economic impact of disasters by promoting the purchase and retention of flood insurance.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits The NPDES permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point -source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint -source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify e ffluent and receiving water limits on allowable
16 (City of Fresno 2022)
17 (CalRecycle n.d.)
4.19.2 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-102
concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.
Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant. In California, the Federal requirements are administered by the SWRCB, and individual NPDES permits are issued by the RWQCBs.
Disposal of Biosolids
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Title 23 California Code of Regulations, and standards established by the RWQCB regulate the disposal of biosolids.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 258 (RCRA, Subtitle D) contains r egulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria. The Federal regulations address the location, operation, design, groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.
State
Safe Drinking Water Act (1976)
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act in 1976. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations establishes CDPH authority and stipulates drinking water quality and monitoring standards.
These standards are equal to or more stringent than the federal standards.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code) The State of California is authorized to administer federal or State laws regulating water pollution within the State. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000, et seq.) includes provisions to address requirements of the CWA. These provisions include NPDES permitting, dredge and fill programs, and civil and administrative penalties. The Porter-Cologne Act is broad in scope and addresses issues relating to the conservation, control, and utilization of the water resources of the State. Additionally, the Porter-Cologne Act states that the quality of all the waters of the State (including groundwater and surface water) must be protected for the use and enjoyment by the people of the State.
Recycled Water Regulations
Within California, recycled water is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), and CDPH. The SWRCB has adopted Resolution No. 77-1, “Policy with Respect to Water R eclamation in California.” This policy states that the SWRCB and RWQCBs will encourage and consider or recommend for funding water reclamation projects that do not impair water rights or beneficial in-stream uses. The CDPH establishes the recycled water us es allowed in California and designates the level of treatment (i.e., un -disinfected secondary, disinfected secondary, or disinfected tertiary) required for each of these designated uses (California Code of Regulation Title 22, Division 4).
The RWQCBs implement the SWRCB Guidelines for Regulation of Water Reclamation and issue waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of recycled water based on stringent water quality requirements. The CDPH develops policies protecting human health and comments and advises on RWQCB permits.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-103
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations
Title 22 regulates, among other things, production and use of reclaimed water in California by establishing three categories of reclaimed water: primary effluent, which typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent) which typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent) which typically involves filtration and chlorination. In addition to defining reclaimed water uses, Title 22 defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for facilities.
Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all publicly or privately-owned utilities that provide water service to more than 3,000 service connections or over 3,000 acre-feet per year to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is intended to support long -term resource planning and ensure suppliers have adequate supplies for existing and future demand. SB X7-7, passed in 2009, requires a reduction in 20 percent per capita water use by the year 2020. These water savings targets must be quantified in updated UWMPs.
Senate Bill 7x7 Statewide Water Conservation
SB X7 -7, which was enacted in 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015.
CALGreen Building Code
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR) to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development including water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011 and are updated every three years . The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.
The California Plumbing Code
The 2010 California Plumbing Code (Part 5, Title 24, CCR) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. The general purpose of the universal code is to prevent disorder in the industry as a result of widely divergent plumbing practices and the use of many different, often conflicting, plumbing codes by local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the code are water fixtures, potable and non- potable water systems, and recycled water systems. Water supply and distribution shall comply will all applicable provisions of the current edition of the California Plumbing Code. The Code is reviewed and updated every three years.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) oversees, manages, and monitors waste generated in California. It provides limited grants and loans to help California cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the State waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. It also provides funds to clean up solid waste disposal sites and co -disposal sites, including facilities that accept hazardous waste substances and non-hazardous waste. CalRecycle develops, manages, and enforces waste disposal and recycling regulations, including AB 939 and SB 1016, both of which are described below.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-104
The Integrated Waste Management Act – Assembly Bill 939 AB 939 (PRC 41780) requires cities and counti es to prepare integrated waste management plans (IWMP) and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare Source Reduction and Recycling Eleme nts as part of the IWMP. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.
California State Recycling Law – Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 is California’s Mandatory Recycling Law for commercial businesses, multifamily complexes, and public entities. AB 341 went into effect on July 1, 2012, and requires all businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multifamily dwellings with five or more units to recycle. AB 341 also sets a statewide goal of 75 percent waste diversion.
California Mandatory Organics Recycling Law – Assembly Bill 1826 AB 1826 is California’s Mandatory Organics Recycling Law for commercial busi nesses and multifamily complexes. AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle organic waste on and after April 1, 2016. By January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions are required to implement an organic waste recycling program that diverts organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings consisting of five or more units. AB 1826 phases the mandatory recycling of commercial organic waste over time based on volume of waste generated by businesses. In April 2016, businesses generating over eight cubic yards of organic waste per week are required to arrange for organic waste recycling services; in January 2017, businesses generating over four cubic yards of organic waste per week will do the same. Additionally, jurisdictions are required to submit annual reports.
Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. Beginning January 1, 2018, the Board will be required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years. CalRecycle has yet to approve Fresno’s diversion/disposal rates. 2006 Universal Waste Law
Since February 8, 2006, residents and small businesses in California have been prohibited from disposing of the following items in the garbage: batteries, electronic devices, fluorescent lights, and mercury thermostats.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan. The following objective and policies related to utilities can be found below:
• Objective PU-4. Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan. • Objective PU-8. Manage and develop the City’s water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-105
• Policy PU -8-a: Forecast Need . Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs. • Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio. • Policy PU -8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.
• Policy PU-8-d: Capital Improvement Programs Update. Continue to evaluate Capital Improvement Programs and update them, as appropriate, to meet the demands of both existing and planned development consistent with the General Plan.
• Policy PU-8-e: Repairs. Continue to evaluate existing water production and distribution systems and plan for necessary repair or enhancement of damaged or antiquated facilities. • Policy PU -8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructin g above -ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.
• Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long -range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
• Objective PU-9. Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.
• Policy PU-9-a: New Techniques. Continue to collaborate with affected stakeholders and partners to identify and support programs and new techniques of solid waste disposal, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and waste separation, to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities. • Policy PU-9-b: Compliance with State Law. Continue to pursue programs to maintain conformance with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 or as otherwise required by law and mandated diversion goals.
• Policy PU -9-c: Cleanup and Nuisance Abatement. Continue and enhance, where feasible, community sanitation programs that provide services to neighborhoods for cleanup, illegal dumping, and nuisance abatement services.
• Policy PU -9-d: Facility Siting. Locate private or public waste facilities and recycling facilities in conformance with City zoning and State and federal regulations, so that the transportation, processing, and disposal of these materials are not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetic well-being of the surrounding community.
• Policy RC-6-c. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable wat er supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025. • Objective RC -8. Reduce the consumption of non -renewable energy resources by requiring and encouraging conservation measures and the use of alternative energy sources.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-106
• Policy C-8-d. Establish an incentive program for residential developers who commit to building all their homes to ENERGY STAR performance guidelines.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The Project is adjacent to an urban and developed area of the City.
Therefore, the Project would connect to existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure within the City. As described below in section b), the City would have adequate water supplies to serve the Project. Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Additionally, as described under section c ), the Project would be served by the existing wastewater treatment provider and would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities.
As mentioned previously, stormwater would be conveyed through the construction of inlets into the existing drainage basin northwest of the Project site. The construction of this stormwater infrastructure would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. The Project would connect to existing natural gas lines located along E. Alluvial Avenue and existing power lines in the project vicinity. Natural gas and electricity connections would be coordinated with PG&E.
Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project must comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the DPU for the construction of water, wastewater, and storm water drainage infrastructure.
In the DPU’s June 2, 2022 project comment letter, conditions were provided to the applicant for project compliance. As mentioned, the Project would comply with said conditions and requirements. In addition, the developer will be responsible for the payment of development impact fees to off -set potential impacts to regional facilities, resulting in less than significant impacts.
The Project is anticipated to consume an additional 19.06 acre-feet per year. To determine whether the increase is significant, a comparison to the supplies and demands of the General Plan land uses, and whether the increase would result in a deficit or exacerbate an existing or planned deficit.
It is expected that the City would encounter dry years and, in worst case, multiple dry years. Below is an analysis of the City’s water supply, and its surpluses, with or without the Project. As depicted in Table
4-20, the Project would not cause a water supply deficit during multiple dry years.
Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies available to s erve the Project and its existing commitments during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.19.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-107
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be required to comply with all regulations applicable to solid waste generation for residential projects. The DPU provided comments on June 2, 2022 regarding solid waste requirements. In order for the Project to comply with local regulations, the Project would be provided with basic container service. Each property owner will receive separate containers for solid waste, green waste, and recyclable materials. Impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Imp act. The American Avenue Disposal Site located in the City of Kerman is the primary landfill serving the majority of the City of Fresno. The American Avenue Disposal Site was permitted in the year 2000, with a permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards. As of 2005 the landfill had a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards. The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,200 tons/day and an estimated closure year of 2031. A typical residence disposes of approximately 10 pounds of solid waste each day. The 28 units proposed by the Project would generate approximately 127 cubic yards of waste per year, or approximately less than 1% of the landfill’s capacity at the landfill’s estimated closure date. Assuming the current maximum daily throughput of solid waste were committed to the landfill each day through its closure date, the Project’s incremental contribution of 1,143 cubic yards of solid waste would not result in the need for new or physically altered landfill facilities to meet service objectives, and thus there would be a less than significant impact. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be required to comply with all regulations applicable to solid waste generation for residential projects. In order for the Project to comply with local regulations, the Project would be provided with basic container service. Each property owner will receive a container for solid waste, green waste, and recyclable materials. Impacts will be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-108
4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-40: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in the northeast section of the City of Fresno, approximately 1.63 miles northwest of State Route 168. The Project is in an urbanized setting and would add a new subdivision to an area that already has housing in the vicinity. The Project site would be served by the City of Fresno for its fire protection needs and is not located in an area on or near a SRA. In addition, the Project site is in an urbanized setting that is not on or near land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 26.4 miles northeast near Auberry.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is an agency within the United States Department of Homeland Security, signed as Executive Order 12127 on April 1, 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. A second Executive Order 12148 signed on July 20, 1979 accorded the a gency with the missions of emergency management and civil defense. The state’s governor must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. □ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ n
□ □ □
4.20.1 4.20.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-109
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance.
There are two different levels of State disaster plans: “Standard;” and “Enhanced.” States that develop an approved Enhanced State Plan, which inclu des California, can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Act has also established new requirements for local hazard mitigation plans.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed under Executive Order 11246 in August 2000, following a landmark wildland fire season. Its intent is to actively respond to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability.
State
California Fire Plan
The Strategic California Fire Plan is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The plan was finalized in August 2018 and directs each CAL FIRE Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan.
These documents assess the fire situation within each of CAL FIRE’s 21 units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities and identify strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work in the fire hazard areas. The plans are required to be updated annually.
Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards
On September 20, 2007, the Building Standards Commission approved the Office of the State Fire Marshal emergency regulations amending the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, known as the CBC.
These codes include provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards in the WUI.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services prepares the State of California Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is required Federally under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the State to receive Federal funding.
California Fire and Building Code
The 201 9 Fire and Building Code establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every buildi ng or structure or any additions connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-110
Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA area and it is approximately 26.4 miles southwest of the nearest area classified a as a very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
There would be no impact.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very hig h fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA area and it is approximately 26.4 miles southwest of the nearest area classified a as a very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA area and it is approximately 26.4 miles southwest of the nearest area classified a as a very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. There would be no impact. d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fi re hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area that is designated on or near a n SRA, nor is it on or near lands that are designated as being a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
4.20.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-111
4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-41: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Statement of Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigated Incorporated . The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology, and tribal cultural resources from implementation of the Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in this analysis. Accordingly, the Project will involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
4.21.1 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 4-112
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Project would include a general plan amendment for purposes of allowing the developm ent of a new residential subdivision and associated infrastructure to connect the subdivision to the City of Fresno. The Project site was anticipated for urbanization with the development of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the
implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into Project design.
c) Does the project h ave environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact . The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project in the City of Fresno. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS /MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.
Table 5-1 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example , AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.
The first column of Table 5 -1 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigatio n measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fou rth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Aesthetics
AES-1 Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.
After construction. Once City of Fresno
Biological Resources
BIO-1 The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
During construction. Once City of Fresno
BIO-2 If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-construction survey for all nesting birds within the Project boundary and an additional 50 feet
surrounding the Project, no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.
Between February 1
and September 15.
Once City of Fresno
BIO-3 On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the qualified biologist will determine
appropriate construction setback distances based on
applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the
biology of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has
determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no
longer dependent on the nest.
Upon discovery. Once City of Fresno
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1
TCR-1
Should archaeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of Project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a
qualified archaeologist. If additional mitigation is
warranted, the Project proponent shall abide by
recommendations of the archaeologist.
During construction Continuously City of Fresno
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
PEIR
CUL-3
TCR-2
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to overlie adjacent
remains until the Fresno County Coroner has determined
that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the
treatment and disposition of the human remains have
been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working
days from the time the person responsible for the
excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
Upon discovery of
human remains
Continuously City of Fresno
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Should paleontological resources be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring,
recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report. Public educational outreach may also be
appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations
shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Visalia for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of
California Museum of Paleontology.
Upon discovery of
paleontological
resources
Continuously City of Fresno
Noise
PEIR
NOI-2
The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.
Prior to issuance of
any grading or
construction permits,
the Planning and
Development
Department shall
ensure that project
Once City of Fresno
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
construction
specifications prohibit
heavy construction
within 25 feet of
existing structures.
References
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
Applied Development Economics. 2021. "Fresno County 2019-2050 Growth Projections." April 9. Accessed 2022. https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/Fresno-COG-2019_2050-Projections-Final-Report-040921.pdf.
CAL FIRE. n.d. CAL FIRE adopted FIre Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Accessed March 24, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
—. n.d. CAL FIRE State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer. Accessed June 27, 2022. https://calfire - forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad8686163876 5ce1.
Calfornia Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx.
California Air Resources Board. 2014. "First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan." May. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_clim ate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
California Air Resources Board. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. May. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_clim ate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
—. 2017. "The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Ta rget." January 20.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: American Avenue Disposal Site (10 -AA-0009). Accessed June 27, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352.
CalTrans. 2019. "List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways." CalTrans. August. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible- aug2019_a11y.xlsx.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevenetion. 2009. Increase in Coccidioidomycosis --- California, 2000-- 2007. February 13. Accessed June 30, 2022.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5805a1.htm.
Central Unified School District. 2022. "Comment letter regarding P22-01629." May 32.
City of Fresno. 2021. "2020 Urban Water Management Plan." Accessed June 15, 2022. https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/07/Fresno-2020- UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf.
—. n.d. City of Fresno Parks Locator. Accessed June 30, 2022. https://cityoffresno.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=53f212b20a0f47efb668 1df6c8ad2eaa.
References
Palms at Alluvial
September 23, 2022 6-2
—. 2022. Department of Public Utilities. Facilities & Infrastructure. https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/north-fresno-wastewater- treatment-facility-nfwtf/.
Clovis Unified School District. n.d. CUSD At -A-Glance. Accessed June 27, 2022. https://www.cusd.com/CUSDAt-A-Glance.aspx.
County of Fresno. 2000. "Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. " General Plan. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=18117.
Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. 2011. "Publications and Technical Bulletins." Office of Historic Preservation.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20 update.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration. n.d. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Maual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit- noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123 0.pdf.
Fresno County Department of Public Health. 2021. Increase in Reported Valley Fever Cases in California in 2017. December. Accessed July 15, 2022.
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/62050/637756124580970000.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. 2022. Notice of Requirements for Tract No. 6404. May 27.
Govnernor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). December 2018. "Technical Advisorry on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." Accessed August 30, 2021. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122 - 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
State of California Department of Water Resources. n.d. "DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool." State of California Department of Wate r Resources DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. " Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety." United States Census Bureau. 2021. Quick Facts, Fresno city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia.
Appendices
Palms at Alluvial
September 23 2022 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Palms at Alluvial
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Residential square footage set to actual
Population based on Housing Element
Construction Phase -
Architectural Coating - Rule 4601 VOC limits
Vehicle Trips - Using 11th Edition ITE Trip Generation Rates Vehicle Emission Factors -
Fleet Mix - 2023 District Accepted Fleet Mix for Residential Projects Area Coating - Rule 4601 VOC limits
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Apartments Low Rise
28.00 Dwelling Unit
1.75 43,632.00
86 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces
7.93 1000sqft
0.18 7,925.00
0 Parking Lot
34.20 1000sqft
0.79 34,200.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2023
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98
0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 3/1/2022 2:41 PM