Exhibit J - Additional Studies (Trip Generation, Noise, & Biological Resource Assessment)

Exhibit K – Additional Studies (Trip Generation Analysis, Noise Study, Biological Resource Assessment)

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991

March 11, 2022

Mr. Harmanjit Dhaliwal, P.E.

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721-3616

Subject: Trip Generation Analysis for the Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment located in the City of Fresno (JLB Project No. 004-156)

Dear Mr. Dhaliwal,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) has completed a Trip Generation Analysis (TGA) for the 8715 North Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment (Project) located on the west side of the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Warwick Avenue in the City of Fresno. The Project proposes to develop a 2.11- acre site with 32 multi-family residential units. Based on information provided to JLB, the proposed Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Medium Low Density Residential to RM-1 Medium High Density Residential.

The purpose of the TGA is to evaluate the potential difference in traffic generation of the proposed Project and that which could otherwise be developed per the Fresno General Plan. The TGA will focus primarily on comparing the anticipated driveway trip generation during a weekday, AM peak hour and PM peak hour of the Project and that which could otherwise be developed consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan land use designation.

Project Description
The Project proposes to develop approximately 2.11 acres with up to 32 multi-family residential units.

Per information provided to JLB, the proposed Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Medium Low Density Residential to RM-1 Medium High Density Residential.

Figure 1 presents the latest Project Site Plan.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991

Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment - City of Fresno Trip Generation Analysis
March 11, 2022
Figure 1: Project Site Plan

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991

Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment - City of Fresno Trip Generation Analysis
March 11, 2022
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for 32 multi-family residential units. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 234 daily trips, 15 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak hour trips.

Table I: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Multifamily Housing
(220) 32 d.u. 7.32 234 0.46 23 77 3 12 15 0.56 63 37 11 7 18 Total Project Trips 234 3 12 15 11 7 18
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
General Plan Trip Generation
The General Plan proposes that the Project site be developed with Single-Family Detached Housing units under the Medium Low Density Residential land use (3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre). For purposes of this comparison, it is assumed that the Project site is developed according to the maximum single-family range allowable under the Medium Low Density Residential of 6 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, this site could be developed with a maximum of 12 Single-Family Detached Housing units (maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre * 2.11 net acres = 12.66 units). Table II presents the trip generation of that which could otherwise be developed consistent with the General Plan with trip generation rates for 12 Single- Family Detached Housing units. Consistent with the General Plan, the Project site is anticipated to generate a maximum of 113 daily trips, 9 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips.

Table II: General Plan Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210) 12 d.u. 9.44 113 0.74 25 75 2 7 9 0.99 63 37 8 4 12 Total Project Trips 113 2 7 9 8 4 12 Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991

Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment - City of Fresno Trip Generation Analysis
March 11, 2022
Trip Generation Comparison
Compared to that which could be developed consistent with the General Plan, the proposed Project is estimated to generate more traffic by 121 daily trips, 6 AM peak hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips.

The trip generation comparison between the proposed Project and the General Plan is available in Table III.

Table III: Difference in Trip Generation
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Project 234 3 12 15 11 7 18
General Plan 113 2 7 9 8 4 12
Difference in Trip
Generation 121 1 5 6 3 3 6

Transportation Impact Study Needs
Per the Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Report for a Project may be required when the following thresholds are met:

1. When project-generated traffic is expected to be greater than 100 vehicle trips during any peak hour.

2. When a project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) which changes the land use.

3. When the project traffic will substantially affect an intersection or roadway segment already identified as operating at an unacceptable level of service.

4. When the project will substantially change the offsite transportation system or connection to it, as determined by the Traffic Engineering Manager.

Moreover, the Fresno General Plan has established four (4) Traffic Impact Zones (TIZs) within the City of Fresno to assist with areas being incentivized for development. In the City of Fresno, all developments within TIZ-I maintain a LOS standard of F and require a TIS when projected to generate greater than 200 peak hour new vehicle trips. In addition, all developments within TIZ-II maintain a LOS standard of E and require a TIS when projected to generate greater than 200 peak hour new vehicle trips. Also, all developments within TIZ-III maintain a LOS standard of D and require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) when projected to generate greater than 100 peak hour new vehicle trips. Lastly, all developments within TIZ- IV maintain a LOS standard of E and require a TIS when projected to generate greater than 200 peak hour new vehicle trips.

Considering the Project is located within TIZ-III and its anticipated trip generation will not exceed 20 peak hour trips, a TIS would likely not be necessary. As a result, the preparation of a TIS beyond that which is included in this technical letter is not recommended.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991

Chestnut Avenue General Plan Amendment - City of Fresno Trip Generation Analysis
March 11, 2022
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations presented below regarding the Project located on the west side of the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Warwick Avenue in the City of Fresno are based on the results of the TGA.
• The proposed Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment to modify the land use from Medium Low Density Residential (3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to RM-1 Medium High Density Residential. • At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately of 234 daily trips, 15 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak hour trips.
• Consistent with the General Plan, the Project site could be developed with up to 12 single family residential units and approximately of 113 daily trips, 9 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips.
• Compared to that which could be developed consistent with the General Plan, the proposed Project is estimated to generate more traffic by 121 daily trips, 6 AM peak hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips.
• The proposed Project is not substantially changing the offsite transportation system or connections to it.
• Based on the findings and knowledge of the proposed Project’s surrounding area, JLB believes that this TGA satisfies the City’s requirements for the proposed Project to be processed. • While the proposed Project will not have a significant change in traffic to warrant the completion of a detailed TIS, City of Fresno staff must make the final determination.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me via phone at (559) 570- 8991, or via email at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.

President

Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-156 Chestnut TGA\Letter\L03112022 Chestnut TGA.docx

From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2022 5:38 PM
To: Thomas Veatch
Cc: Phillip Siegrist
Subject: RE: P22-01086 P21-06232 - TIS question

Categories: From/To Mangement

Good Afternoon Thomas,

We have a had discussions with JLB regarding when an official study would be required. In this instance we would not ask for a study, but since there is a General Plan Amendment/Rezone, we would require the Trip Comparison Letter as they are submitting.

Thanks,

Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Supervising Professional Engineer
Traffic Operations & Planning Division, Public Works Department 2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721-3623
Direct: (559) 621-8694
Main: (559) 621-8800
www.fresno.gov
Building a Better Fresno

From: Thomas Veatch < [email protected] >
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2022 4:43 PM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal < [email protected] > Cc: Phillip Siegrist < [email protected] >
Subject: P22-01086 P21-06232 - TIS question

Hi Harman,

I have an application for a Development Permit and General Plan Amendment/Rezone in completeness review for a proposed 32 unit apartment complex. They are stating that a trip generation report is enough because peak hour trips is low. Is a TIS required regardless because it involves the GPA/Rezone, or is there discretion on if it’s required or not?

Project Description:

General Plan Amendment/Rezone Application P21-06232 is proposed to rezone subject property from RS-4 (Residential Single Family, Medium Low Density) to RM-1 (Residential Multi-family - Medium High Density) for a proposed apartment project. Related Development Permit Application No. P21-06232 which was filed by John Ashley of Fresno/Newbury LP and pertains to ±2.20 acres of property generally located on the west side of North Chestnut Avenue between the intersections of East Shepherd and East Teague Avenues, at 8175 North Chestnut Avenue (APN: 403-532-28). The applicant proposes a 32 unit apartment complex consisting of 4 5,750 square foot two-story buildings and a 1,069 sq foot leasing and managers office on a vacant parcel. In addition, on and off-site improvements are proposed including but not limited to a new drive approach, 79 new parking stalls, pool, trash enclosures, landscaping, curb, gutter, and sidewalks.

Thomas Veatch
[email protected]
559 621 8076
Planner
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043 · Fresno, CA 93721

March 15, 2022

John Ashley

FRESNO/NEWBURY LP
1554 Shaw Ave
Clovis, CA 93611

Subject: Noise Study: Proposed 32 Unit Apartment Complex, 8715 N. Chestnut Avenue, Clovis, CA 93619

Dear Mr. Ashley:

Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. is pleased to submit Fresno/Newbury LP the enclosed CalEEMod Noise Study for your proposed 32 Unit Apartment Complex in Clovis, CA. Soar Environmental is grateful for the time and effort in providing us with preliminary information. Our environmental professional team performed this assessment under my supervision in accordance with generally accepted environmental practices and procedures, as of the date of this report. I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have employed the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable environmental professionals practicing in this area.

The conclusions contained within this assessment are based upon site conditions readily observed or were reasonably ascertainable.

Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Fresno/Newbury LP.

We look forward to providing you with further services in the future. Please notify us if you have questions or need additional assistance.

Respectfully submitted,
Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc.

Matthew D. Fidel, MS Env. Engineering

Enclosure: CalEEMod Noise Study

NOISE STUDY

PROPOSED 32 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX
8715 N. Chestnut Avenue, Clovis, CA 93619

FRESNO/NEWBURY LP
1554 Shaw Ave
Clovis, CA 93611

Prepared by

A Certified DVBE Corporation
1401 Fulton St, Suite 918
Fresno, CA 93721

March 2022

1 Table of Contents

1. Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 2

2. Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Noise Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Noise Impact Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2

3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3

3.2.1 Noise Descriptors ............................................................................................................ 3

3.2.2 Vibration Descriptors ...................................................................................................... 5

3.2.3 Existing Noise Environment ............................................................................................ 5

3.2.4 Sensitive Receptors ......................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Street Traffic Noise ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.1 Existing Street Traffic Noise Environment ........................................................................ 6

3.4 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................... 6

3.4.1 State .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.4.2 Local .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.5 Results of Construction Screening Noise Analysis ....................................................................... 9

3.6 Operational Noise ........................................................................................................................ 11

3.7 Results of Street Traffic Noise Analysis ....................................................................................... 11

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 134

4.1 Project Impact ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14

4.2 Recommended Mitigation…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

5. Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 14

6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Tables

Table 1: Typical Sound Level Characteristics
Table 2: Fresno General Plan Table 9-2 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Table 3: Fresno General Plan Table 9-3 Stationary Noise Sources Table 4: Fresno General Plan Table 9-1 Measured Existing Noise Levels Table 5: FHWA Noise Reference Levels and Usage Factors Table 6: Anticipated Construction Noise at 50 ft
Table 7: Fresno General Plan MEIR Anticipated Noise Contours Table 8: Fresno General Plan MEIR Table 5.11-2 Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building Construction

Appendices

A CalEEMod Outputs
B FHWA Noise Model Outputs
2 1 Project Description

The proposed project is located at 8715 N Chestnut Avenue, Clovis, CA, and involves the development and construction of the property for a 32-unit apartment complex. The 2. 11-acre parcel is currently vacant; therefore, no demolition will be required. The nearest sensitive receptor s are the residences adjacent to the project site to the north. The nearest school to the project site is Clovis West High School approximately 1 mile west of the project site. The nearest airport is Fresno Yosemite International Airport approximately 9 miles south of the project site.

2 Assumptions

The following basic assumptions were used in developing the estimates for the proposed project using CalEEMod:

• CalEEMod defaults were applied to all phases of the project unless otherwise specified. • Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) default trip distances for Fresno County, as contained in CalEEMod, were assumed for the operational traffic analysis. • Some project design features including sizes and number of buildings were defin ed by the Applicant and replaced some CalEEMod default settings.
• CalEEMod construction timelines are generally accurate unless otherwise stated. • During the site preparation and grading phases of construction, it is anticipated that no soil will need to be exported from or imported to the project site. • The default equipment from CalEEMod for each construction phase, is representative of actual construction equipment used during construction.

3 Noise Impacts Analysis

3.1 Noise Impact Methodology

The screening-level noise analysis for project construction was completed based on the methodology developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (DOT FHWA) at the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and other technical references consistent with CalEEMod outputs (equipment utilization). The DOT FHWA methodology uses actual noise measurement data collected during the Boston “Big Dig” project (1991 -2006) as reference levels for a wide variety of construction equipment in common use, such as on the proposed project. This noise analysis did not include field measurements of ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site.

The FHWA noise model provides relatively conservative predictions because it does not account for site - specific geometry, dimensions of nearby structures, and local environmental conditions that can affect the sound transmission, reflection, and attenuation. As a result, actual measured sound levels at receptors may vary somewhat from predictions, typically lower. Additionally, the impacts of noise upon receptors (persons) are subjective because of differences in individual sensitivities and perceptions.

3 Noise impacts are evaluated against community noise standards contained in the City or County General Plan or other state or federal agency as applicable to the vicinity of the project site. For this project , the City of Fresno General Plan contains the applicable evaluation criteria (City 2014).

During construction activities, the proposed project would generate noise due to the operation of offroad equipment, portable generating equipment, and vehicles at or near the project site. No strong sources of vibrations are planned to be used during construction activities.

Since the project is near existing streets, the incremental effect of project operation (possible slightly increased traffic) would not be quan tifiable against existing traffic noise in the project vicinity (i.e., less than significant impact).

The proposed project is located within 162 feet of a 4-Lane Arterial Street. Due to the nature of the project, the construction of sensitive receptors within this distance meets the criteria provided by the City of Fresno to conduct a Noise Study. Project features designed to reduce the impact of street noise would minimize noise impacts to residents.

3.2 Environmental Setting

3.2.1 Noise Descriptors

Noise is typically described as any dissonant, unwanted, or objectionable sound. Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA). Table 1 lists common sound characteristics and their intensities in dBA.

4 Table 1
Typical Sound Level Characteristics

Sources: Broch 1971, Plog 1988

In most situations, a 3-dBA change in sound pressure is considered a “just-detectable” difference. A 5-dBA change (either louder or quieter) is readily noticeable, and a 10-dBA change is a doubling (if louder) or halving (if quieter) of the subjective loudness. Sound from a small, localized source (a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance.

The duration of noise and the period at which it occurs are important factors in determining the impact of noise on sensitive receptors. A single number called the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) may be used to describe the sound that is changing i n level. It is also used to describe the acoustic range of the noise source being measured, which is accomplished through the maximum Leq (Lmax) and minimum Leq (Lmin) indicators.

In determining the daily measure of community noise, it is important to ac count for the difference in human response to daytime and nighttime noise. Noise is more disturbing at night than during the day, and noise indices have been developed to account for the varying duration of noise events over time, as well as a community response to them. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dB penalty to the “nighttime” hourly noise levels (HNLs) (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) adds a 10-dB penalty to the evening HNLs (Caltrans 2020, FTA 2006).

Pressure
(N/m2) Level dB Sound Level Characteristic
2000 160 Rocket Launch
600 150 Military Jet Plane Takeoff
200 140 Threshold of Pain
60 130 Commercial Jet Plane Takeoff
20 120 Industrial Chipper or Punch Press
6 110 Loud Autoimobile Horn
2 100 Passing Diesel Truck - Curb Line

0.6 90 Factory - Heavy Manufacturing

0.2 80 Factory - Light Manufacturing

0.06 70 Open Floor Office - Cubicles

0.02 60 Conversational Speech

0.006 50 Private Office - Walled

0.002 40 Residence in Daytime

0.0006 30 Bedroom at Night

0.0002 20 Recording or Broadcasting Studio

0.00006 10 Threshold of Good Hearing - Adult

0.00002 0 Threshold of Excellent Hearing - Child
5 3.2.2 Vibration Descriptors

A vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through structures and the earth, whereas noise is carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Actual human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a combination of factors, including soil type, the distance between the source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived events.

While not a direct health hazard, the energy transmitted through the ground as vibration may result in structural damage, which may be costly to repair and dangerous in the event of structural failure. To assess the potential for structural damage associated with vibration, the vibratory ground motion in the vicinity of the affected structure is measured in terms of point peak velocity/peak particle velocity (PPV) in the vertical and horizontal directions (vector sum) . A freight train passing at 100 feet may cause PPVs of 0.1 inch per second, while a strong earthquake may produce PPVs in the range of 10 inches per second. Minor cosmetic damage to buildings may begin in the range of 0.5 inch per second (Caltrans 2020, FTA 2006).

3.2.3 Existing Noise Environment

The project site is in the City of Fresno, in a characteristically urban area subject to noise from local traffic on public streets, buses, trucks, construction, and small power equipment. The City of Fresno General Plan contains guidelines for the maximum allowable noise exposure to sensitive rec eptors from both Transportation and Non -Transportation sources. These guidelines are shown in Tables 2 and 3. For this analysis, the daytime ambient background noise from known sources was set at 5 0 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed pro ject (residences to the north of the proposed project site). This is based on light to moderate traffic on N. Chestnut Avenue, as well as general urban background noise.

3.2.4 Sensitive Receptors

Some land uses are generally regarded as being more sensitive to noise than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups normally include children and the elderly. The City of Fresno General Plan Health and Safety Element also includes residential areas as noise- sensitive land uses. Other sensitive land uses generally include hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, senior facilities, libraries, churches, and parks.

The nearest school to the project site is Clovis West High School approximately 1 mile west of the site. The nearest church is NorthPark Community Church located approximately 800 feet north of the site. The nearest residential receptors are adjacent to the northern property boundary of the p roject site, approximately 75 feet from the center of the construction zone.

All construction activities would be short-term and temporary. All construction work is planned to be conducted during daylight hours; no nighttime work is planned to be performed. Upon completion of construction, construction-generated noise would permanently cease. Because the project is in an urban area within 500 feet of an existing surface street, no additional project-related noise is expected over long- term project operations.
6 3.3 Street Traffic Noise

The project includes dwelling units that are located within 162 feet of a 4-Lane Arterial Road. Due to the nature of the project, the construction of sensitive receptors within this distance to a 4-Lane Arterial Road meets the criteria provided by the City of Fresno to conduct a Noise Study.

3.3.1 Existing Street Traffic Noise Environment

The project site is in the City of Fresno, in a characteristically urban area subject to noise from local traffic on public streets, buses, trucks, construction, and small power equipment. Vehicle noise includes noises produced by the engine, exhaust, tires, and wind-generated by taller vehicles. Other factors that affect the perception of traffic noise include the distance from the highway, terrain, vegetation, and natural and structural obstacles (City 2014). Measured existing noise levels from the City of Fresno General Plan can be seen in Table 4.

3.4 Regulatory Setting

3.4.1 State

The State of California does not promulgate statewide standards for environmental noise but requires each city and county to include a noise element in its general plan [California Government Code Section 65302(f)]. In addition, Title 4 of the CCR has guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. In general, the guidelines require that community noise standard:

• Protect residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. • Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or programmed land uses likely to create significant noise impacts.
• Encourage the application of state -of-the-art land use planning methodologies around managing and minimizing potential noise conflicts.

Construction vibration is regulated at the state level by standards established by the Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual issued by Caltrans in 2004. Continuous sources include the use of vibratory compaction equipment and other construction equipment that creates vibration other than in single events. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting. Thresholds for continuous sources are 0.5 and 0.1 inch per second PPV for structural damage and annoyance, respectively. Thresholds for transient sources are 1.0 and 0.9 PPV for structural damage and annoyance, respectively (Caltrans 2020).

3.4.2 Local

City of Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element

The City of Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element noise level criteria for land use compatibility.

The following summarizes the policies and criteria applicable to the proposed project:

7 • Policy NS-1-A:
o 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 n oise 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 property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.

• Policy NS-1-B:
o Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range: Noise Exposure Ra nge.

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 conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 (Table 2).

• Policy NS-1-G:
o Noise mitigation measures that help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Façades with substantial weight and insulation.
 Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas.  Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas.
 Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers.
 Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic, and gable ends.  Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.
o The measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the city, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

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

8 Table 2
Fresno General Plan Table 9-2 Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources

Source: City 2014

Table 3
Fresno General Plan Table 9-3 Stationary Noise Sources

Source: City 2014

9 Table 4
Fresno General Plan Table 9-1 Measured Existing Noise Levels

Source: City 2014

3.5 Results of Construction Screening Noise Analysis

The proposed project can be characterized as a new residential development on a vacant plot of land. Most noise would occur during the site preparation , grading, construction, and paving when heavy equipment would be operating.

Each of the five construction phases would be a different mix of equipment operating, and cumulative noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity on the project site. In general, the use of off-road equipment and portable equipment would generate noise due to engine mechanicals, engine exhaust, driveline mechanicals, shaft -driven devices and accessories, hydraulics operation, ground friction and displacement, and gravity drops (dumping, unloading).

Since no intense percussive actions (e.g., Hard rock-breaking, large pile-driving) are planned to occur during the site work, no strong ground -borne vibrations are expected to be generated that could affect nearby structures or be noticeable to their occupants.

Types of equipment (FHWA 2006) to be used during the project and noise-emitting characteristics (i.e., Usage factors, reference dBA, and percussive source) are shown in Table 5 consistent with CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A). The Project is expected to require up to 12 months of planned work activities (i.e., Mobilization to substantial completion) comprising five construction phases (CalEEMod 2020):

• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building construction
• Paving
• Architectural coating

10 Table 5
FHWA Noise Reference Levels and Usage Factors

Source: CalEEMod v 2020.4.0, FHWA 2006

During the construction of the project including related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 6, ranging from approximately 74 dBA to approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet from the project site. Construction activities would be temporary and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Full FHWA Noise Model outputs are in Appendix B.

Usage Factor Ref. Level Percussive Source
Phase Name Equipment Description Qty. percent dBA Yes/No Graders 1 Grader 1 40% 85 No
Scrapers 1 Scraper 1 40 85 No
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Backhoe (with loader) 1 40% 80 No Graders 1 Grader 1 40% 85 No
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 Tractor (rubber tire) 1 40% 84 No Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 Backhoe (with loader) 1 40% 80 No Cranes 1 Crane 1 16% 85 No
Forklifts 2 Forklift 1 40% 80 No
Generator Sets 1 Generator
(<25 KVA quiet design) 1 50% 70 No
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Backhoe (with loader) 1 40% 80 No Welders 3 Welding Machine
(arc welding) 1 50% 70 No
Cement and
Mortar Mixers 1 Drum Mixer 1 50% 80 No
Pavers 1 Paver (asphalt) 1 50% 85 No
Paving Equipment 1 Pavement Scarifier 1 20% 85 No
Rollers 2 Roller 1 20% 85 No
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Backhoe (with loader) 1 40% 80 No Archetectual
Coating
(5)
Air Compressors 1 Compressor (air) 1 40% 80 No
Ref.

Paving
(4)
CalEEMod Construction Detail
Site
Preparation
(1)
Grading
(2)
Building
Construction
(3)
FHWA Equipment Type
11 Table 6
Anticipated Construction Noise at 50 ft

Source: CalEEMod v 2020.4.0, FHWA 2006

3.6 Operational Noise

Upon completion of construction and occupancy of the proposed project, on-site operational noise would be generated mainly by on -site traffic and vehicles. However, the overall noise levels generated by operations are not expected to increase current noise levels beyond existing significance thresholds. As such, the project would not represent a substantially new type or source of noise in the general vicinity.

Therefore, the operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

3.7 Results of Street Traffic Noise Analysis

The City of Fresno General Plan MEIR identified existing noise level measurements taken at various points throughout the city. E McKinley Ave (West Avenue to N Fruit Avenue), a 4-Lane Arterial Road, is shown to have a Measured Noise Level of 64.2 dBA at 25 feet from the noise source (City 2014). N Chestnut Ave, being like E McKinley Ave, can be assumed to have a similar Measured Noise Level at the same distance.

The nearest building to N Chestnut Ave included in the project contains the Manager’s and Leasing Offices and is approximately 65 feet from the centerline of N Chestnut Ave. The nearest Apartment building is approximately 140 feet from the centerline of N Chestnut Ave.

The City of Fresno MEIR also identifies anticipated noise levels after project buildout for each roadway type at the right-of-way. The anticipated noise contour of a 4-Lane Arterial Road is shown in Table 7:

Phase Duration (days) L(max) L(eq)
Site Preparation 3 85 83.8
Grading 6 85 83.6
Building Construction 220 85 86.5
Paving 10 89.5 86.9
Architectural Coating 10 77.7 73.7
Construction Phases
Anticipated Construction Noise at 50 ft
12 Table 7
Fresno General Plan MEIR Anticipated Noise Contours

Roadway dBA CNEL at Right-of-Way
Distance to Contour (feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
4-Lane Arterial 68 78 169 363 782
Source: City 2014

Table 8 shows the typical reduction in noise levels of building facades by occupancy type. The Manager and Leasing Offices classify as commercial, while the apartment buildings classify as residential.

Table 8
Fresno General Plan MEIR Table 5.11-2 Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building Construction

Source: City 2014

The noise generated by vehicle traffic on N Chestnut Avenue could potentially exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for noise-sensitive land uses. However, with the implementation of reduction measures detailed in General Plan Policy NS-1-G, roadway noise levels would be reduced to within the City’s proposed noise standard.

13 4 Conclusion

Soar Environmental predicts a less than significant impact for project con struction and operation . Soar Environmental further predicts a less than significant impact for the impact of street noise on the project.

This would be achieved with Best Management Practices (BMP) incorporated by the City of Fresno General Plan.

4.1 PROJECTED IMPACT: Less Than Significant (LTS) with Best Management Practices (BMP) Incorporated.

4.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION: Project Construction Best Management Practices (BMP).

BMP NOI-1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during the construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
• Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities.
• Ensure that all general construction-related activities are restricted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the city who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., Starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Implementation of BMP NOI-1 would limit construction hours and require the construction contractor to implement noise-reducing measures during construction, which would reduce short -term construction noise impacts to less than significant.

BMP NOI-2: City of Fresno General Plan Policy NS-1-G. Noise reduction measures that help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Façades with substantial weight and insulation.
• Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas. • Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas. • Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers.
• Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic, and gable ends. • Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

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

14 5 Limitations

The scope of services performed to complete this assessment is limited in nature. Site conditions can vary with time; therefore, this assessment is not intended to predict future site conditions. Because of the nature of this assessment, site history has been developed based solely upon information provided by the Client or during the review of available regulatory files on this, and nearby sites. This report is not a complete risk assessment, and the scope of services does not include a complete determination of the extent of, nor the environmental or public health impact of, known or suspec ted hazardous materials or wastes.

The information contained in this report is based upon work performed by trained professional and technical staff by general accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The conclusions and recommendations presented are representative of the best judgment from Soar Environmental staff and are based upon the information obtained from field reconnaissance and data review. Due to the nature of this investigation, Soar Environmental cannot warrant undiscovered environmental liabilities. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice.

Should additional information become available that differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, we request that this information be brought to our attention so that we may reassess the conclusions provided herein.

15 6 References

Broch, Jens. 1971. Acoustic Noise Measurements. Bruel & Kjaer

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Website:
(
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm- apr2020-a11y.pdf) accessed March 2022.

California Emissions Estimation Model® (CalEEMod). 2020. Version 2020.4.0. Website:
(http://www.caleemod.com/
) accessed August 26, 2021.

Fresno City of, 2014. City of Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element. Accessed March 2022.

Fresno City of, 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report.

Section 5.11 – Noise. Accessed March 2022.

Fresno City of, 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report.

Section H.6 – Planning Area Exhibits – Roadway Functional Classifications. Accessed March 2022.

Plog, Barbara, Ed. 1988. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene – 3rd Edition, National Safety Council.

U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Website:
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/ ) accessed December 2021.

U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Authority (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Website:
(https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf )
accessed December 2021.
16 Appendix A
CalEEMod Outputs

FNLP
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 2.11 acres
Construction Phase -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 32.00 Dwelling Unit 2.11 32,000.00 92

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.00 2.11
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 2.11 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 2.11 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 1 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1271 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6724 150.6724 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6256
2023 0.3918 0.7123 0.7801 1.4200e-
003

0.0106 0.0321 0.0426 2.8300e-
003

0.0307 0.0335 0.0000 119.0693 119.0693 0.0216 6.4000e-
004
119.7998
Maximum 0.3918 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6724 150.6724 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6256
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1271 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6722 150.6722 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6254
2023 0.3918 0.7123 0.7801 1.4200e-
003

0.0106 0.0321 0.0426 2.8300e-
003

0.0307 0.0335 0.0000 119.0692 119.0692 0.0216 6.4000e-
004
119.7996
Maximum 0.3918 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6722 150.6722 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6254
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 2 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.3899 0.3899
2 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.5449 0.5449
3 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.5143 0.5143
4 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5151 0.5151
5 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.2640 0.2640
Highest 0.5449 0.5449

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Energy 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 35.5352 35.5352 2.4300e-
003

6.7000e-
004

35.7946
Mobile 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

0.0705 0.0000 239.7982 239.7982 0.0126 0.0132 244.0491
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.9880 0.0000 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 6615 1.4695 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e- 003

4.3219
Total 0.2804 0.2287 1.3341 2.8100e-
003

0.2562 6.0300e-
003

0.2622 0.0685 5.9000e-
003

0.0745 3.6495 291.0536 294.7031 0.2605 0.0158 305.9108
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 3 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Energy 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 35.5352 35.5352 2.4300e-
003

6.7000e-
004

35.7946
Mobile 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

4.3219
Total 0.2804 0.2287 1.3341 2.8100e-
003

0.2562 6.0300e-
003

0.2622 0.0685 5.9000e-
003

0.0745 3.6495 291.0536 294.7031 0.2605 0.0158 305.9108
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/29/2022 7/1/2022 5 3 2 Grading Grading 7/2/2022 7/11/2022 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 7/12/2022 5/15/2023 5 220 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 4 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 5/16/2023 5/29/2023 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/30/2023 6/12/2023 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 64,800; Residential Outdoor: 21,600; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 5 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 23.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 6 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 7 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 2.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0103 2.0500e-
003

0.0123 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 8 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 2.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0103 2.0500e-
003

0.0123 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 9 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7617 128.7617 0.0248 0.0000 129.3827 Total 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7617 128.7617 0.0248 0.0000 129.3827 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 10 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0100 2.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.1000e-
004

1.3400e-
003

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

0.0000 3.7142 3.7142 3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

3.8817
Worker 4.7900e-
003

3.2700e-
003

0.0368 1.0000e-
004

0.0114 6.0000e-
005

0.0115 3.0300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0800e-
003

0.0000 9.2609 9.2609 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

9.3528
Total 5.1700e-
003

0.0133 0.0397 1.4000e-
004

0.0126 1.7000e-
004

0.0128 3.3900e-
003

1.5000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000 12.9751 12.9751 3.3000e-
004

8.4000e-
004

13.2345
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7615 128.7615 0.0248 0.0000 129.3826 Total 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7615 128.7615 0.0248 0.0000 129.3826 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 11 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0100 2.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.1000e-
004

1.3400e-
003

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

0.0000 3.7142 3.7142 3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

3.8817
Worker 4.7900e-
003

3.2700e-
003

0.0368 1.0000e-
004

0.0114 6.0000e-
005

0.0115 3.0300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0800e-
003

0.0000 9.2609 9.2609 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

9.3528
Total 5.1700e-
003

0.0133 0.0397 1.4000e-
004

0.0126 1.7000e-
004

0.0128 3.3900e-
003

1.5000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000 12.9751 12.9751 3.3000e-
004

8.4000e-
004

13.2345
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6970 99.6970 0.0189 0.0000 100.1683 Total 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6970 99.6970 0.0189 0.0000 100.1683 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 12 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.3300e-
003

1.9000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.7695 2.7695 2.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

2.8941
Worker 3.4200e-
003

2.2100e-
003

0.0260 8.0000e-
005

8.8300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.8700e-
003

2.3500e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

0.0000 6.9411 6.9411 2.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

7.0063
Total 3.5700e-
003

8.5400e-
003

0.0279 1.1000e-
004

9.7800e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.8700e-
003

2.6300e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

0.0000 9.7105 9.7105 2.3000e-
004

6.2000e-
004

9.9004
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6969 99.6969 0.0189 0.0000 100.1682 Total 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6969 99.6969 0.0189 0.0000 100.1682 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 13 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.3300e-
003

1.9000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.7695 2.7695 2.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

2.8941
Worker 3.4200e-
003

2.2100e-
003

0.0260 8.0000e-
005

8.8300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.8700e-
003

2.3500e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

0.0000 6.9411 6.9411 2.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

7.0063
Total 3.5700e-
003

8.5400e-
003

0.0279 1.1000e-
004

9.7800e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.8700e-
003

2.6300e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

0.0000 9.7105 9.7105 2.3000e-
004

6.2000e-
004

9.9004
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 14 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Total 2.3000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 15 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Total 2.3000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.3013 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 16 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Total 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3004 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.6000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.3013 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 17 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Total 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 18 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

0.0705 0.0000 239.7982 239.7982 0.0126 0.0132 244.0491
Unmitigated 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

0.0705 0.0000 239.7982 239.7982 0.0126 0.0132 244.0491

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 234.24 260.48 200.96 683,299 683,299 Total 234.24 260.48 200.96 683,299 683,299
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 48.40 15.90 35.70 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.515888 0.053153 0.175761 0.156529 0.025865 0.006829 0.014141 0.022504 0.000707 0.000289 0.023863 0.001496 0.002975 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 19 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12.2310 12.2310 1.9800e- 003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12.2310 12.2310 1.9800e- 003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 20 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
436705 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Total 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
436705 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Total 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 21 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
132193 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Total 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
132193 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Total 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 22 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Unmitigated 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.4000e-
003

0.0120 5.0900e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.7000e-
004

0.0000 13.8626 13.8626 2.7000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

13.9450
Landscaping 7.1400e-
003

2.7400e-
003

0.2375 1.0000e-
005

1.3200e-
003

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 3.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3974
Total 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2900e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 23 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.4000e-
003

0.0120 5.0900e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.7000e-
004

0.0000 13.8626 13.8626 2.7000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

13.9450
Landscaping 7.1400e-
003

2.7400e-
003

0.2375 1.0000e-
005

1.3200e-
003

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 3.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3974
Total 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2900e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 24 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Unmitigated 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

2.08493 /

1.31441

2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Total 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 25 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

2.08493 /

1.31441

2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Total 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Unmitigated 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 26 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

14.72 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Total 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

14.72 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Total 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 3/10/2022 12:39 PMPage 27 of 28 FNLP - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/11/2022
Case Description: FNLP Site Prep
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Northern Residences Residential 50 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 85 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 83.6 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85 83.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/11/2022
Case Description: FNLP Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Northern Residences Residential 50 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 50 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 85 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85 83.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/11/2022
Case Description: FNLP Construction
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Northern Residences Residential 50 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 50 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 50 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 50 0
Generator No 50 80.6 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 50 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 50 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 80.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 80.6 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 74 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85 86.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/11/2022
Case Description: FNLP Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Northern Residences Residential 50 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 50 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 50 0
Drum Mixer No 50 80 50 0
Paver No 50 77.2 50 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 50 0
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Roller No 20 80 50 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 80.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Drum Mixer 80 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 77.2 74.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 89.5 82.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 80 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 89.5 86.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/11/2022
Case Description: FNLP Coating
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Northern Residences Residential 50 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Biological Resource Assessment
8715 N Chestnut Avenue Housing Development Project
Assessor Parcel Number 403-532-28
Fresno, CA

Prepared for
Fresno Newbury LP

Prepared by

1401 Fulton St, Suite 918
Fresno, CA 93721

February 28, 2022

Page 2 of 26 ends

Executive Summary

As lead agency, the City of Fresno has tasked Fresno/Newbury L.P. to provide a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA), as part of the Initial Study (IS) for the development of a 32 -unit apartment complex (Project) on the property located at 8715 North Chestnut Avenue within the City of Fresno (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to implementation of the proposed Project. Fresno – Newbury L.P has tasked Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) to provide the necessary environmental evaluation documentation of an IS/N D or IS/MND. CEQA studies include a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and Biological Resources Assessment.

The objectives of this Assessment were to: 1) provide a general characterization of biological resources for the property; 2) inventory plant and wildlife species; 3) evaluate the potential for federal or state listed plants and animals species afforded other special regulatory protection; and 4) describe the property’s sensitive biological resources and applicable federal, state, and local land use policies.

This BRA provides information about the biological resources within the P roject area. Prior to field activities, Soar E nvironmental researched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special -status species that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the Project area. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, IPaC and C NPS databases and included species listing status, and proximal species observations in this report.

No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed in the Project a rea during the field survey on February 14, 2022 . Special -status wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the Project area based on presence of suitable habitat and/or documented occurrences in the vicinity include:
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
• San Joaquin Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)
• Succulent owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta)

All other special-status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the Project area, due to lack of suitable habitat. No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the special status species identified in this report. Due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all species identified in the data records search were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA considerations. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. recommends that if any special status species are observed during construction activities, work be stopped immediately and CDFW is contacted.

Page 3 of 26 ends

Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 6

2. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology ............................................................................................... 9

3. Habitat Assessment Results ................................................................................................................ 10

4. Special-Status Species ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions ............................................................................... 16

4.1.1 California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) .................................................. 16

4.1.2 Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) .................................................................................. 16

4.1.3 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) ....................................... 17

4.1.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) ....................... 17

4.1. 5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi) ....................................................................... 17

4.1.6 San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) ........................................................... 18

4.1.7 Succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja camperstris) ...................................................................... 18

5. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 18

6. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 19

7. Study Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 19

8. Works Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 20

List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location .................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Project Site Boundary ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 – Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 – Historical Special-Status Species Locations .......................................................................... 9

List of Tables
Table 1– Species Observed on the Project Site ............................................................................. 10 Table 2 – Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring on Site or in the Vicinity ............ 12 Table 3 – Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring on Site or in the Vicinity ................. 15

Page 4 of 26 ends

APPENDIX A: Project Site Photographs ...................................................................................................... 21 Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View West) ........................................................................................ 21 Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South) ......................................................................................... 21 Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West) ....................................................................................... 22 Photo 4 – Eastern Boundary (View South) ......................................................................................... 22 Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (View North) .................................................................................... 23 Photo 6 – Center of Project Area (View East) ..................................................................................... 23 Photo 7 – Center of Project Area (View South) .................................................................................. 24 Photo 8 – Center of Project Area (View West) ................................................................................... 24 Photo 9 – South Boundary of Project Site (View East) ....................................................................... 25 Photo 10 – Water Irrigation Valve (View Northwest) ......................................................................... 25 Photo 11 – Stormwater Retention Pond Along Western Boundary (View Northwest) ...................... 26 Photo 12 – Tree Patch Canopy Cover (View Southwest) .................................................................... 26

Page 5 of 26 ends

1. Introduction

The proposed Project is a 32-unit apartment complex development on 2. 11 acres in the City of Fresno.

The Project site is located at 8715 N Chestnut Avenue, Fresno, CA 93619, on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 403-532-28. Fresno/Newbury LP has tasked Soar Environmental Consulting (Soar Environmental) with providing a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) within the City of Fresno, California. Soar Environmental prepared this BRA for Fresno/Newbury LP in support of the CEQA requirements.

Based on a review of CNDD B database research it was determined that a Habitat Assessment was necessary to search for the potential suitable habitat or presence for the 9 following sensitive wildlife species: California tiger salamander, Fresno kangaroo rat, least Bell's vireo, San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle , vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the western, yellow-billed cuckoo.

A review of the USFWS IPaC Database indicated a Habitat Assessment should also include analysis for the 8 additional wildlife species: blunt -nosed leopard lizard , California red-legged frog, c onservancy fairy shrimp, delta smelt, fisher, giant garter snake, monarch butterfly, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

A review of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California identified the following 7 sensitive plant species historically occurring in the vicinity of the Project s ite: California jewelflower , Greene's tuctoria, hairy Orcutt grass, Hartweg's golden sunburst, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, San Joaquin Orcutt grass, and succulent owl's-clover.

A Habitat Assessment was conducted in the P roject area on February 14, 2022, by Soar Environmental biologist Travis Albert. The purpose of the Habitat Assessment s urvey was to search for the presence of special-status species that have historically been observed within, or surrounding, the Project a rea. No special-status species were observed during the site visit.

1.1 Project Location

The proposed Project site is located on the north side of the City of Fresno, at 8715 N Chestnut Avenue , on the west side of the road. Approximately 2.9 miles east of State Route (SR) 41, and 1.3 miles north of Herndon Avenue. Located in the USGS Clovis 7.5-minute quadrangle in Township 1 2S, Range 20E, and north ½ of section 25. The Project involves development of a 2.11-acre lot, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 403-532-28. The site is topographically flat and is bounded by residential development to the north, east and west. There is a similar grassy lot adjacent to the south, which is also bounded on all other sides by residential development. The Project site is a grassy field with signs of recent ground disturbance from heavy machinery.

Page 6 of 26 ends

Figure 1. Project Location

1.2 Environmental Setting

The Project site is a small property of approximately 2.11 acres located in a residential and urban environment on the north side of the City. Groundcover is dominated by ruderal plant species, comprised of a mixture of native and non-native grasses. The property is bounded to the east by Chestnut Avenue, residential housing to the north and west, with a similar grassy field adjacent to the south. There are oak and evergreen trees scattered around the surrounding neighborhoods. The site is topographically flat at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Soil is highly disturbed from heavy machinery and removal of a single family residence. There is an existing under ground storm sewer pipe on the property with associated concrete debris and metal valve structures (Photos 9 - 12).

Page 7 of 26 ends

Figure 1 – Project Site Boundary

Figure 3 – Site Plan

Page 8 of 26 ends

2. Methods

2.1 Literature Review

Prior to performing the Habitat Assessment, Soar Environmental conducted a records search for threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project a rea. The records search included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory . The area covered by the data records search included USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles of Clovis, Academy, Fresno North, Fresno South, Friant, Lanes Bridge , Malaga, Round Mountain, and Sanger 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles. From these sources a list of special- status plant and animal species was generated. Proximal locations of special -status plant and animal species located within 5 miles of the Project site are shown in (Figure 4).

The CNDDB records search indicated 9 State-listed special-status wildlife species most likely to occur within or near the Project Site would include:
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)
• Least Bell's vireo (Vireo belii pusillus)
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

The IPaC search revealed 8 additional Federally listed sensitive wildlife species likely to occur within or near the Project Site include:
• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus)
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)
• Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)
• Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
• Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)
• Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
• Vernal pool tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)

A search of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Rare Plant Inventory identified the following 7 special-status plant species likely to occur within or proximate to the Project Site:
• California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
• Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)
• Hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa)
• Hartweg's golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
• San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii)

Page 9 of 26 ends

• San Joaquin Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)
• Succulent owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta)

The Closest and most recent occurrences of special-status species from the data records search are shown in (Figure 4).

Figure 4 – Historical Special-Status Species Locations

This map shows the closest and most recent special-status species locations from the CNDDB, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology

On February 14, 2022, Soar Environmental biologist Travis Albert conducted a Habitat Assessment on the property for the above mentioned species. Walking the perimeter of the property, and meandering transects throughout the Project site, the surveyor searched for signs of vernal pools, bird nests, possible

Page 10 of 26 ends

small mammal dens, identif ied vegetation, and looked for other signs of wildlife occupancy and suitable habitat. Survey efforts emphasized the search for special -status species that had documented occurrences in the data records search of the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases. Photos were taken of the Project boundaries, and from the center of the Project site in four cardinal directions depicting the habitat (Photos 1 - 8). The surveyor drove the roads within 0.5 mile surrounding the Project footprint searching for signs of special-status species and potentially active nests, or vernal pools. No active nests, or suitable habitat for the special-status species identified in this report were observed during the Habitat Assessment.

3. Habitat Assessment Results

During the field reconnaissance, there were no observations of special-status plant or wildlife species.

The Project site is in a residential and urban environment on the north side of the City. The surrounding area is mostly residential neighborhoods. Groundcover is dominated by ruderal plant species, comprised of a mixture of native and non -native grasses. The property is surrounded by residential housing, with a similar grassy field adjacent to the south. There are oak and evergreen trees scattered around the surrounding neighborhoods. Soil is highly disturbed from heavy machinery for the removal of a single family residence. There is an existing underground storm sewer pipe on the property with associated concrete debris and metal valve structures (Photos 9 - 12). No bird nests, small mammal burrows, riparian habitats, vernal pools, or natural water features were observed on the property. The only wildlife species observed during the habitat assessment was a rock pigeon (Columba livia).

The Habitat Assessment was conducted outside the blooming period for most special status plant species, listed in (Table 3). Regardless, no special-status plant species were observed on the Project site. Ground cover was mostly bare earth on the east side near the road, otherwise dominated by a mix of native and non-native ruderal grass and weeds. Trees and shrubs only occur sparsely around the perimeter of the Project site. Habitat conditions did not appear to be conducive for the listed plant species during the site visit.

Although no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the s ite visit, all wildlife observations, and plant species identified during the site visit are identified in ( Table 1) below. No other wildlife species were observed during the site visit.

Table 1– Species Observed on the Project Site
Plant Species Observed Listing Status
Cheeseweed
(Malva parviflora) None
Wildlife Species Observed Listing Status
Rock pigeon
(Columba livia) None

Page 11 of 26 ends

Menzies fiddleneck
(Amsinckia menziesii) None
Oat
(Avina sativa) None
Poverty brome
(bromus sterilis) None
Southern live oak
(Quercus virginiana None
Tiny vetch
(Vicia hirsuta) None
Wall Barely
(Hordeum murinum) None
Wild radish
(Raphanus raphanistrum) None

4. Special-Status Species

Special-status plants and animals that have a reasonable possibility to occur in the Project area based on habitat suitability and requirements, elevation and geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and proximity of known occurrences in the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS databases to the Project area are listed in Tables 2 and 3 . The likelihood for occurrence of special-status species was assessed using information from the various listed sources , wildlife and botanical surveys. Narratives are provi ded for species for which there are land use planning and regulatory implications. Special-status species for which there are no habitat features are excluded from consideration due to the lack of suitable habitat and distance from the subject property.

Based upon a review of the resources and databases listed in Section 2.1 (Literature Review) for the Clovis, Academy, Fresno North, Fresno South, Friant, Lanes Bridge, Malaga, Round Mountain, and Sanger USGS

7.5-minute quadrangles; it was determined that 2 4 special-status species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project a rea. Of these 24 special-status species, 7 were determined to have potential for occurrence.

Species with Potential for Occurrence:
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
• San Joaquin Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)
• Succulent owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta)

Page 12 of 26 ends

Special-status species and sensitive habitats include plant and wildlife taxa, or other unique biological features that are afforded special protection by local land use polic ies, state and federal regulations.

Special-status plant and animal species are those that are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. Vegetation communities may warrant special-status if they are of limited distribution, have high wildlife value, or are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Listed and special-status species are defined as:
• Listed or proposed for listing under the state or Federal Endangered Species acts. • Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act). • CDFG Species of Special Concern.
• Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; or
• Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.

Special-status species considered for this analysis are based o n field survey results, review of the CNDDB occurrence records of species, review of the USFWS lists for special-status species occurring in the region, and CNPS literature (Tables 2 and 3).
• Present: Species known to occur on the site, based on CNDDB reco rds, and/or was observed on the site during the field survey.
• High: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB records within 8 km or 5 mi) and there is suitable habitat on the site.
• Low: Species known to occur in the vicinity of the site, and there is marginal habitat onsite. -OR - Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site, however there is suitable habitat on the site.
• None: Species is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the species on the site. -OR - Species was surveyed for during the appropriate season with negative results.

Table 2 – Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring on Site or in the Vicinity
Common/ Scientific
Name
Listing
Status* Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii) FT, SSC
Standing waters and freshwater
marshes, wetland. Forest, scrub,
and woodland riparian areas.

Requires a breeding pond, slow-
flowing stream. Will use small
mammal burrows.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) FT, ST
Grasslands, oak savannah riparian
woodlands and lower elevations of
coniferous forests, ditches, vernal
pools, and wetlands.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Page 13 of 26 ends

Birds
Least Bell's vireo
(Vireo belii pusillus)

FE, SE,
BCC,
MBTA
Willow-cottonwood forests, oak
woodlands, shrubby thickets,
and dry washes. During the
migration- coastal scrub,
woodland, and riparian habitats.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Swainson's hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
ST,
MBTA
Nests in isolated trees or riparian
woodlands adjacent to suitable
foraging habitat (agricultural fields,
grasslands, etc.).

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)

ST, BCC,
MBTA
Found in areas near water, such as
marshes, grasslands, and wetlands.

They require some sort of substrate
nearby to build nests.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)

FT, SE,
MBTA
Woodlands near streams or lakes,
abandoned farmland, old fruit
orchards, successional shrubland
and dense thickets.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Fishes
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) FT
Shallow, fresh, or slightly brackish
backwater sloughs and edge waters,
with good water quality and
substrate for spawning.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio)

FE
Inhabit large, cool-water vernal
pools from early November to
early April, which fill with water
in the rainy season, then slowly
dry up.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC
Closed-cone coniferous forest.

Roosts located in wind-protected
tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)

FT
Occurs only in the Central Valley
of California, in association with
blue elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), in riparian scrub
None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT
Grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in valley foothills
None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no

Page 14 of 26 ends

grasslands, vernal pools, and
wetlands.
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Vernal pool tadpole Shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Vernal pools, (hardpan, duripan,
or claypan), grassland. Pools
commonly found in grass-
bottomed or mud-bottomed
swales.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Mammals
Fisher (Pekania pennanti)
FE Occurs in intermediate to large-
tree stages of coniferous forests
and deciduous-riparian habitats
with a high percent canopy
closure.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis)
FE, SE
Arid and alkaline plains under shrub
and grass vegetation, coastal scrub,
open stages of chaparral, and desert
scrub habitats, and in conifer
woodlands.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis mutica) FE, SE
Arid flat grasslands, scrublands, and
alkali meadows with short
vegetation.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Reptiles
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila) FE, SE
Semi-arid grasslands, alkali flats,
and washes, utilize shrubs and small
mammal burrows.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) FT
Marshes, sloughs, drainage canals,
irrigation ditches, and prefers
locations with vegetation close to
water for basking.

None: Species is not known
to occur on or in the vicinity
of the site and there is no
suitable habitat for the
species on the site.

*Listing Status Notes:

Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
WL – USFWS Watch list
BCC – USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
MTBA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act

State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species
SA – State Special Animal
FP – CDFW Fully Protected Species
SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL – CDFW Watch List

Page 15 of 26 ends

Table 3 – Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring on Site or in the Vicinity Common/ Scientific Name
*Status
Fed/CA/CNPS/
Bloom Period
Habitat Description Habitat Present/
Absent
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
FE/CE/1B.1/
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon-
Juniper woodland, valley and
foothill grassland
Absent
Greene's tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)

FE/SR/1B.1/
May-Jul
Vernal pools, hardpan,
tuffaceous alluvium, or
claypan.

Absent
Hairy Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia Pilosa)
FE/CE/1B.1/
May-Sep
Near streams, alluvial fans
and within annual grasslands Absent
Hartweg's golden sunburst
(Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
FE/CE.1B.1/
Mar-Apr
Open grasslands and
grasslands at the margins
of blue oak woodland,
foothills
Absent
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Feb-Apr
Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill
grassland, adobe clay
Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/CE/1B.1/
Apr-Sep Vernal pools
Absent
Succulent owl's-clover
(Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta)
1B.2/ Apr-
Sep
Vernal pools (50 – 750 m;
165-2460 ft) Absent

*Listing Status Notes:

Federal: FE – Federally listed Endangered
FT – Federally listed Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate Species
State: SE – State listed Endangered
ST – State listed Threatened
SC – State Candidate Species
SR – State Rare Species

CRPR: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank CBR – Considered but Rejected
1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but common elsewhere 4 – Limited distribution (Watch-list)
CBR – Considered but Rejected
CRPR Extensions 0.1 – Seriously endangered in California

0.2 – Fairly endangered in California

0.3 – Not very endangered in California

Page 16 of 26 ends

4.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions

This section describes identifiable physical characteristics and habitat requirements for special-status species identified in the data records search that were within 5 miles of the project site.

4.1.1 California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) California tiger salamander is listed as Threatened on the federal and state level. Adults range in size from 15-22 centimeters (6 to 9 inches) and have a dark background color with distinctive yellow spots. Juveniles look much like adults but lack the yellow spots. Larval are grayish green in color and have the appearance of tadpoles with obvious, external gills. California tiger salamander eggs are clear and are typically laid singly or in groups of three or four in shallow ponds.

Endemic to California , this species is found in grasslands, oak savannah woodlands, edges of mixed woodland, lower elevations of coniferous forests, and in heavily grazed fields along the Central California Coast and within the Central San Joaquin Valley. They may breed in ditches where wat er is present for a long enough duration for eggs and larvae to metamorphose into adults. During the non-breeding season (approximately late May through early November), California tiger salamander live in small mammal burrows, typically those of ground s quirrels and pocket gophers. California tiger salamander spend most of each year on land, emerging from refugia only occasionally, usually on rainy nights, and have been observed on land up to 1.24 miles from potential breeding pools.

During the Habitat Assessment there were no signs of California tiger salamander, and suitable habitat for this species was not observed within the vicinity of the Project Site. A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest and most recent occurrences of this species are 3.30 miles away at 5° N in 1992, or 4.05 miles away at 37° NE in 2017.

4.1.2 Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
Tricolored blackbird is a state threatened species. Males are larger than females and possess dark red shoulder patches with white median coverts on the wings, giving the species its name. Males have brown plumage in the fall. Females are shades of gray with a lighter gray throat. They are about 22 cm long with a 35.5 cm wingspan. They weigh approximately 59.5 grams.

Tricolored blackbirds are found in areas near water, such as marshes, grasslands, and wetlands. They require some sort of substrate nearby to build nests. This substrate is often in the form of aquatic vegetation. They also need foraging areas, which can consist of grassland or agricultural pastures such as rice, grain, or alfalfa.

There were no observations of tricolored blackbird during the habitat assessment. Wetland habitat normally associated with this species was not present in the vicinity of the project site. According to CNDDB records the closest and most recent occurrence for this species is 0.33 miles away at 176° S, in May of 1974.

Page 17 of 26 ends

4.1.3 Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Yellow-billed cuckoos are threatened on the federal level and endangered on the state level. They have uniform grayish-brown plumage on their head and back, and dull white underparts. Their tails are long with two rows of four to six large white circles on the underside. The bill of yellow-billed cuckoos is short to medium in length and curved downward with a black upper mandible and a yellow or orange lower mandible. Yellow-billed cuckoos have zygodactylous feet, meaning that of the four toes, the middle two point forward and the outer two point backward.

Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In North America, their preferred habitats include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets. In winter, yellow- billed cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves.

During the Habitat Assessment there were no signs of western yellow-billed cuckoo and suitable habitat for this species was not observed within the vicinity of the Project Site. A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest and most recent occurrences of this species are 3.65 miles away at 308° N in 1883.

4.1.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is listed as t hreatened at the f ederal level. This insect is found in the presence of red or blue elderberry in the San Joaquin Valley of California, often preferring larger (2 -8 inch thick stem), stressed elderberry plants (CNDDB). Breeding typically occurs between March and June when adults are most active.

The habitat on t he Project Site is not suitable for valley elderberry longhorn beetle as there are no host plant, red or blue valley elderberry. CNDDB records indicate the closest and most recent observations of this species is 3.20 miles at 297° N, along the San Joaquin river in March of 1992.

4.1. 5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is listed as threatened on the federal level and has no listing on the state level. Species can be up to 2.5 centimeters (one inch) long, they are translucent crustaceans with 11 pairs of appendages. Vernal pool fairy shrimp are limited to vernal pool habitats in Oregon and California and do not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water where fish are present. During the wet season, the females produce hardy resting eggs, called cysts, which survive the dry season and hatch when the rains come again.

Habitat on the Project Site is not suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp as there are no vernal pools present on the Project area. A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest and most recent occurrence of this species is 3.30 miles away at 5° N in 1992. According to CMDB records vernal pool fairy shrimp are potentially extirpated in the local area.

Page 18 of 26 ends

4.1.6 San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass is a Federally Threatened and State Endangered mat-forming, hairy annual grass that grows up to 6 inches (15 cm) tall, with small brown flower clusters that bloom from April to September. San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass only grows in vernal pool habitats.

During the field survey, the Soar Biologist did not observe signs of San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass within the Project Site or surrounding area. Due to urbanization and the highly disturbed nature of the area, the potential for this species is unlikely. There are no vernal pool habitats or seasonal wetlands onsite, and there is no evidence that stormwater accumulates for a long enough duration to allow this wetland species to thrive. The closest known occurrence of San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass is 2.80 miles away at 267° W of the Project Site in in 1927. The most recent occurrence is 4.58 miles away at 9° N in May of 1996. No adverse impacts to San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass are anticipated to occur during proposed construction activities.

4.1.7 Succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja camperstris)
Succulent owl’s clover is listed as federally threatened and s tate endangered. It is a small herbaceous annual plant found in vernal pools of the eastern San Joaquin Valley. The stems are generally 5 to 25 cm (2-10 inches) tall and may be branched or unbranched. Branches end in short, dense, green inflorescences.

The leaves are succulent and brittle. Yellow or white flowers bloom in May. SOC is found in vernal pools along the eastern San Joaquin Valley in the Southern Sierra Foothills.

During the field survey, no s ucculent owl’s clover was observed within the P roject Site or surrounding area. CNDDB records indicate the nearest occurrence of succulent owl’s clover is 2.20 miles away at 276° W. There is no evidence of vernal pools occurring on the P roject Site, and the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the species.

5. Findings

During the Habitat Assessment, Soar Environmental did not observe any of the referenced special-status species within the Project site or environmental footprint. A records search of the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory indicated proximal locations of the following species within 5 miles of the Project site: California tiger salamander, tricolored blackbird, western yellow-billed cuckoo , valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, San Joaquin Orcutt grass, and succulent owl's-clover (Figure 4). The findings for this report are summarized below.

California tiger salamander are not likely to occur in the vicinity of the Project site due to the proximity of the historical occurrences and lack of suitable habitat. California tiger salamander typically inhabit shallow vernal pools that contain standing water for at least 10 continuous weeks in the year. Their physical development is dependent on annual shrinkage of the ponded water. There are no water features on the Project site that would provide suitable breeding habitat, or burrows that would provide refugia for this species. A search of CNDDB records indicate the nearest and most recent occurrences of this species are

3.30 miles away in 1992, and 4.05 miles away in 2017. During the Habitat Assessment there were no signs

Page 19 of 26 ends

of California tiger salamander, and suitable habitat for this species was not observed within the vicinity of the Project site.

There were no observations of tricolored blackbird or western yellow-billed cuckoo during the habitat assessment. Although observations of tricolored blackbird were recorded 0.33 miles from the Project site in 1974, land use in the area has been greatly developed since, and suitable habitat for both bird species is no longer present.

Two invertebrate species were identified in the records search: valley elderberry longhorn beetle and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Suitable habitat for either species does not occur in the vicinity of the Project site. There are no red or blue valley elderberry in the vicinity of the Project site, necessary for valley elderberry longhorn beetle occupancy, and there is no vernal po ol habitat required for v ernal pool fairy shrimp.

As there is no vernal pool habitat on the Project s ite, suitable habitat for both plant species identified in the data records search; San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, and succulent owl’s clover, is not present in the vicinity of the Project s ite. These are both wetland plant species. There are no vernal pool habitats or seasonal wetlands onsite, and there is no evidence that stormwater accumulates for a long enough duration to allow these wetland plant species to thrive.

From the information gathered in the data records search and analysis of the habitat on site, these species were found to have the highest potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the project site. However, due to habitat quality and proximity of historical occurrences, all of these species were found to be unlikely to occur within the vicinity of the Project site. Based on the findings of this assessment, the proposed development of this property is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species and is likely to have no effect for CEQA considerations.

6. Recommendations

No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment of the Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the aforementioned species.

The proposed development of this parcel is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species. Soar Environmental Consu lting, Inc. recommends that if any special status species are observed during construction activities, work be stopped immediately and CDFW is contacted.

7. Study Limitations

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

Page 20 of 26 ends

8. Works Cited

Calflora. (2020). Taxon Report. Retrieved from https://www.calflora.org

California Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind.

Retrieved from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind

CDFW. (17 June 2013). California’s Vernal Pools. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools

CDFW. (March 20, 2018). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Retrieved from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline

Audubon Guide to North American Birds. (2020). https://www.audubon.org Calscape. (2020). Retrieved from https://calscape.org

Center for Biological Diversity. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey- Protocols#377281285-mammals

US EPA. (Feb. 2010). Delta Smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/delta-smelt_0.pdf

USFWS. (2005). Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281282- amphibians

Page 21 of 26 ends

APPENDIX A: Project Site Photographs

Photo 1 – Northern Boundary (View West)

Photo 2 – Eastern Boundary (View South)

Page 22 of 26 ends

Photo 3 – Southern Boundary (View West)

Photo 4 – Eastern Boundary (View South)

Page 23 of 26 ends

Photo 5 – Center of Project Site (View North)

Photo 6 – Center of Project Area (View East)

Page 24 of 26 ends

Photo 7 – Center of Project Area (View South)

Photo 8 – Center of Project Area (View West)

Page 25 of 26 ends

Photo 9 – South Boundary of Project Site (View East)

Photo 10 – Water Irrigation Valve (View Northwest)

Page 26 of 26 ends

Photo 11 – Stormwater Retention Pond Along Western Boundary (View Northwest)

Photo 12 – Tree Patch Canopy Cover (View Southwest)

Tool Version: Report Date: 2/13/2023
Name:

Jurisdiction
APN No.

Single‐family: 0 DU Multi ‐family: 32 DU
Total: 32 DU Percent Affordable: 0%
Non‐Residential Office: 0 EMP Others: TSF
Included
in the project TDM Quantification
% VMT/Capita
Reduction
% VMT/Employment
Reduction
No N/A
No N/A

12.9 County VMT / Capita: 16.1
Significant Impact: No
Project VMT Results
Residential
Project's VMT/Capita (12.9) is less than County VMT/Capita (14.0 using 13% as threshold) Project VMT per Capita:

Project VMT per Capita with TDM
Measures:

12.9 Significant Impact with
TDM measures: No
Project TDM measures (VMT reduction strategies)
Fresno COG Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Tool Summary Report Version 1.38
Project Information
Chestnut Apartments
Fresno
40353228
Project Land Use
Residential
TDM Strategy
Implement Project Specific Vanpool Program
Implement Project Specific Carpool Program

20.0 12.9 12.9

13.1 16.1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
TAZ Project Project + TDM
VMT per Capita
County Average
FNLP
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 2.11 acres
Construction Phase -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 32.00 Dwelling Unit 2.11 32,000.00 92

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6724 150.6724 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6256
2023 0.3918 0.7123 0.7801 1.4200e-
003

0.0106 0.0321 0.0426 2.8300e-
003

0.0307 0.0335 0.0000 119.0693 119.0693 0.0216 6.4000e-
004
119.7998
Maximum 0.3918 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

0.0366 0.0468 0.0834 0.0140 0.0448 0. 0588 0.0000 150.6722 150.6722 0.0280 8.5000e- 004
151.6254
2023 0.3918 0.7123 0.7801 1.4200e-
003

0.0106 0.0321 0.0426 2.8300e-
003

0.0307 0.0335 0.0000 119.0692 119.0692 0.0216 6.4000e-
004
119.7996
Maximum 0.3918 0.9933 0.9734 1.7900e-
003

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Energy 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 35.5352 35.5352 2.4300e-
003

6.7000e-
004

35.7946
Mobile 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

4.3219
Total 0.2804 0.2287 1.3341 2.8100e-
003

0.2562 6.0300e-
003

0.2622 0.0685 5.9000e-
003

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Energy 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 35.5352 35.5352 2.4300e-
003

6.7000e-
004

35.7946
Mobile 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

4.3219
Total 0.2804 0.2287 1.3341 2.8100e-
003

0.2562 6.0300e-
003

0.2622 0.0685 5.9000e-
003

0.0745 3.6495 291.0536 294.7031 0.2605 0.0158 305.9108
Mitigated Operational

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0779 0.0779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0787
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 2.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0103 2.0500e-
003

0.0123 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 2.2300e-
003

0.0235 0.0103 2.0500e-
003

0.0123 0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1948 0.1948 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7617 128.7617 0.0248 0.0000 129.3827 Total 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0100 2.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.1000e-
004

1.3400e-
003

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

0.0000 3.7142 3.7142 3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

3.8817
Worker 4.7900e-
003

3.2700e-
003

0.0368 1.0000e-
004

0.0114 6.0000e-
005

0.0115 3.0300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0800e-
003

0.0000 9.2609 9.2609 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

9.3528
Total 5.1700e-
003

0.0133 0.0397 1.4000e-
004

0.0126 1.7000e-
004

0.0128 3.3900e-
003

1.5000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000 12.9751 12.9751 3.3000e-
004

8.4000e-
004

0.0435 0.0435 0.0417 0.0417 0.0000 128.7615 128.7615 0.0248 0.0000 129.3826 Total 0.1150 0.9055 0.8899 1.5500e-
003

0.0100 2.8400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.2300e-
003

1.1000e-
004

1.3400e-
003

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

0.0000 3.7142 3.7142 3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

3.8817
Worker 4.7900e-
003

3.2700e-
003

0.0368 1.0000e-
004

0.0114 6.0000e-
005

0.0115 3.0300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.0800e-
003

0.0000 9.2609 9.2609 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

9.3528
Total 5.1700e-
003

0.0133 0.0397 1.4000e-
004

0.0126 1.7000e-
004

0.0128 3.3900e-
003

1.5000e-
004

3.5400e-
003

0.0000 12.9751 12.9751 3.3000e-
004

8.4000e-
004

13.2345
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6970 99.6970 0.0189 0.0000 100.1683 Total 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

6.3300e-
003

1.9000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.7695 2.7695 2.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

2.8941
Worker 3.4200e-
003

2.2100e-
003

0.0260 8.0000e-
005

8.8300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.8700e-
003

2.3500e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

0.0000 6.9411 6.9411 2.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

7.0063
Total 3.5700e-
003

8.5400e-
003

0.0279 1.1000e-
004

9.7800e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.8700e-
003

2.6300e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

0.0000 9.7105 9.7105 2.3000e-
004

6.2000e-
004

0.0295 0.0295 0.0282 0.0282 0.0000 99.6969 99.6969 0.0189 0.0000 100.1682 Total 0.0823 0.6540 0.6823 1.2000e-
003

6.3300e-
003

1.9000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.7695 2.7695 2.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

2.8941
Worker 3.4200e-
003

2.2100e-
003

0.0260 8.0000e-
005

8.8300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

8.8700e-
003

2.3500e-
003

4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

0.0000 6.9411 6.9411 2.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

7.0063
Total 3.5700e-
003

8.5400e-
003

0.0279 1.1000e-
004

9.7800e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.8700e-
003

2.6300e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
003

0.0000 9.7105 9.7105 2.3000e-
004

6.2000e-
004

9.9004
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Total 2.3000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Total 2.3000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

1.7700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4715 0.4715 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4760
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.3013 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Total 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.3013 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1572 0.1572 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587
Total 8.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

0.0705 0.0000 239.7982 239.7982 0.0126 0.0132 244.0491
Unmitigated 0.1145 0.1939 1.0829 2.5900e-
003

0.2562 2.1200e-
003

0.2583 0.0685 1.9900e-
003

0.0705 0.0000 239.7982 239.7982 0.0126 0.0132 244.0491

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12.2310 12.2310 1.9800e- 003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12.2310 12.2310 1.9800e- 003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Total 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

23.4427
Total 2.3500e-
003

0.0201 8.5600e-
003

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 23.3042 23.3042 4.5000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
132193 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Total 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
132193 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

12.3519
Total 12.2310 1.9800e-
003

2.4000e-
004

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425
Unmitigated 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2800e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

14.3425

0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.4000e-
003

0.0120 5.0900e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.7000e-
004

0.0000 13.8626 13.8626 2.7000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

13.9450
Landscaping 7.1400e-
003

2.7400e-
003

0.2375 1.0000e-
005

1.3200e-
003

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 3.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3974
Total 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2900e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.4000e-
003

0.0120 5.0900e-
003

8.0000e-
005

9.7000e-
004

0.0000 13.8626 13.8626 2.7000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

13.9450
Landscaping 7.1400e-
003

2.7400e-
003

0.2375 1.0000e-
005

1.3200e-
003

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 3.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3974
Total 0.1636 0.0147 0.2426 9.0000e-
005

2.2900e-
003

0.0000 14.2508 14.2508 6.4000e-
004

2.5000e-
004

4.3219
Unmitigated 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

2.08493 /

1.31441

2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Total 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

2.08493 /

1.31441

2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Total 2.1309 0.0682 1.6300e-
003

4.3219
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

14.72 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Total 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

14.72 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Total 2.9880 0.1766 0.0000 7.4027
Mitigated

11.0 Vegetation

FRESNO GREENHOUSE GA S (GHG)

REDUCTION PLAN UPDAT E

CEQA PROJECT CONSIST ENCY CHECKLIST

March 2020

Page 1 ends

F R E S N O G R E E N H O U S E G AS (GHG) R E D U C TI O N P L A N U P D A T E M A R C H 2020
Fresno Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update –
CEQA Project Consistency Checklist

INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno updated its 2014 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan (the Plan) in the year 2020 to conform with existing applicable State climate change policies and regulations. The GHG Plan Update outlines strategies that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. The purpose of this GHG Reduction Plan Update Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.

This Checklist has been developed as part of the GHG Plan Update implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement of individual GHG reduction strategies as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update and must prepare a project- specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. This GHG Checklist can be updated to reflect adoption of new GHG reduction strategies or to comply with any changes and updates in the Plan or local, State or federal regulations. Note that not all the measures in the checklist are applicable to all projects. The projects should comply with applicable measures from the checklist.

Page 2 ends

F R E S N O G R E E N H O U S E G A S ( G H G ) R E D U C T I O N P L A N U P D A T E M A R C H 2020

1. Project Information
Contact Information
Project No./Name:

Address:

Applicant Name/Co:

Contact Information:

Project Information

1. What is the Site acreage of the Project?

2. Identify all Applicable Proposed Land uses:
a. Residential (Indicate number of single-family units) b. Residential (Indicate number of multi-family units)
c. Commercial (total square footage)
d. Industrial (total square footage)
e. Other (describe)

3. Is the project or a portion of the project located in a transit priority area? (Y/N)

4. Provide a brief description of the project proposed:

Development Permit Application No. P21-06232
8715 N. Chestnut Avenue, Clovis, CA 93619
Fresno/Newbury LP
Mr. John Ashley
1554 Shaw Ave
Clovis CA 93611

2.11 0
32 0
0 N/A
No
Residential Medium High Density
Replace an existing vacant lot with
32 unit apartment complex.

Page 3 ends

F R E S N O G R E E N H O U S E G A S ( G H G ) R E D U C T I O N P L A N U P D A T E M A R C H 2020

2. Determining Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
As the first step in determining the consistency with the GHG Reduction Plan for discretionary development projects, this section allows the City to determine the project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the GHG Reduction Plan.

Yes No

1. Is the proposed project consistent with the approved General Plan, Specific Plan, and Community Plan planned land use and zoning designations?
If the answer is Yes, then proceed to the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist.

If the answer is No, then proceed to question 2.

2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the approved planned land use and zoning designation(s), then provide estimated GHG project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation with the maximum buildout of the proposed designation.

If the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the proposed designation(s) is equivalent to or less than the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s), then in accordance with the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds, the project’s GHG impact is less than significant. If there is a proposed development project associated with this plan amendment and or rezone then complete the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist and incorporate applicable measures, otherwise there is no further step required.

If the estimated project emission at maximum buildout of the proposed designation(s) is greater than the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s), then in accordance with the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds, the project’s GHG impact is significant. The project must either show consistency with applicable GP objectives and policies (provide applicable GP objectives and policies here) 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) unless the decision‐maker finds that a measure is infeasible in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. If there is a proposed development project associated with this plan amendment and or rezone then complete the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist and incorporate applicable measures, otherwise there is no further step required.

Page 4 ends

F R E S N O G R E E N H O U S E G A S ( G H G ) R E D U C T I O N P L A N U P D A T E M A R C H 2020

3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update - CEQA Project Consistency Checklist
GHG Plan Update consistency review involves the evaluation of project consistency with the applicable strategies of the GHG Plan Update. This checklist was developed based on the key local GHG reduction strategies and actions identified in the GHG Plan Update that are applicable to new development projects.

Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Yes No Not Applicable (NA) Explanation
Strategy 1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Management Does the project provide complete streets for all roadway improvements? (Complete streets are roadways that include curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. For local and collector streets, adequate roadway width is provided to accommodate two-way vehicle traffic and bicycles and arterial streets include striping for bike lanes.)

Is the project a large employer (over 100 employees) and if so will the project comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9410 and provide an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that will include trip reduction methods such as increasing transit use, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures? See the SJVAPCD website link for details:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9410.pdf

Strategy 2: Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Does the project meet the mandatory energy efficiency measures of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen)? If the Project exceeds mandatory CalGreen measures then provide the tier number that the project will meet in the explanation.

For commercial projects, does it achieve net zero electricity? Mark NA if project will be permitted before 2030. Mark Yes if voluntary. Add source and capacity in explanation.

Does the project include onsite energy generation using renewable energy? If no, mark NA. If yes, provide source and capacity in the explanation.

Strategy 3: Water Conservation
Does the project meet the mandatory indoor water use measures of the CalGreen Code? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation.

Examples may include water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, energy efficient appliances such as Energy Star Certified dishwashers, washing machines, dual flush toilets, point of use and/or tankless water heaters. Provide the measures, devices, or systems that the project will include in the explanation.

Does the project meet the mandatory outdoor water use measures of the CalGreen Code? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation? Examples may include any outdoor water conservation measures such as; drought tolerant landscaping plants, compliant irrigation systems, xeriscapes etc. Provide the conservation measure that the project will include in the explanation.

Strategy 4: Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
When completed will the project implement techniques for solid waste diversion and reduction (i.e., recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, waste separation)?
X
During construction will the project recycle construction and demolition waste?
X

X
X
X
No roadways
constructed
Residential project
X
Residential project
Solar carports
FNLP - single family analysis GHG
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - lot acreage
Construction Phase -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 12.00 Dwelling Unit 2.11 21,600.00 34

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

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.90 2.11
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 2.11 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 2.11 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 1 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0278 0.0631 0.0909 0.0117 0.0604 0. 0720 0.0000 217.8850 217.8850 0.0416 3.6000e- 004
219.0333
2024 0.2266 0.1948 0.2326 4.0000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

8.4800e-
003

9.5600e-
003

2.9000e-
004

8.0600e-
003

8.3500e-
003

0.0000 33.9046 33.9046 7.0000e-
003

5.0000e-
005

34.0957
Maximum 0.2266 1.4120 1.4525 2.6100e-
003

0.0278 0.0631 0.0909 0.0117 0.0604 0. 0720 0.0000 217.8850 217.8850 0.0416 3.6000e- 004
219.0333
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1762 1.4120 1.4525 2.6100e-
003

0.0278 0.0631 0.0909 0.0117 0.0604 0. 0720 0.0000 217.8847 217.8847 0.0416 3.6000e- 004
219.0330
2024 0.2266 0.1948 0.2326 4.0000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

8.4800e-
003

9.5600e-
003

2.9000e-
004

8.0600e-
003

8.3500e-
003

0.0000 33.9045 33.9045 7.0000e-
003

5.0000e-
005

34.0957
Maximum 0.2266 1.4120 1.4525 2.6100e-
003

0.0278 0.0631 0.0909 0.0117 0.0604 0. 0720 0.0000 217.8847 217.8847 0.0416 3.6000e- 004
219.0330
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 2 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 2-17-2023 5-16-2023 0.3372 0.3372
2 5-17-2023 8-16-2023 0.5061 0.5061
3 8-17-2023 11-16-2023 0.5061 0.5061
4 11-17-2023 2-16-2024 0.4830 0.4830
5 2-17-2024 5-16-2024 0.1798 0.1798
Highest 0.5061 0.5061

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784
Energy 1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 24.2462 24.2462 1.7300e-
003

4.6000e-
004

24.4252
Mobile 0.0521 0.0884 0.4928 1.2000e-
003

0.1229 9.8000e-
004

0.1239 0.0329 9.2000e-
004

0.0338 0.0000 111.3438 111.3438 5.7400e-
003

6.1000e-
003
113.3059
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4846 0.0000 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 2480 0.5511 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e- 004

1.6207
Total 0.1615 0.1072 0.5894 1.3100e-
003

0.1229 2.9100e-
003

0.1258 0.0329 2.8500e-
003

0.0357 2.7327 141.4850 144.2177 0.1801 7.2700e-
003
150.8857
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 3 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784
Energy 1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 24.2462 24.2462 1.7300e-
003

4.6000e-
004

24.4252
Mobile 0.0521 0.0884 0.4928 1.2000e-
003

0.1229 9.8000e-
004

0.1239 0.0329 9.2000e-
004

0.0338 0.0000 111.3438 111.3438 5.7400e-
003

6.1000e-
003
113.3059
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.4846 0.0000 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 2480 0.5511 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e- 004

1.6207
Total 0.1615 0.1072 0.5894 1.3100e-
003

0.1229 2.9100e-
003

0.1258 0.0329 2.8500e-
003

0.0357 2.7327 141.4850 144.2177 0.1801 7.2700e-
003
150.8857
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/17/2023 3/21/2023 5 3 2 Grading Grading 3/22/2023 3/29/2023 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/30/2023 1/31/2024 5 220 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 4 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 2/1/2024 2/14/2024 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/15/2024 2/28/2024 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 43,740; Residential Outdoor: 14,580; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 5 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9500e-
003

0.0214 0.0147 4.0000e-
005

8.1000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2578
Total 1.9500e-
003

0.0214 0.0147 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.1000e-
004

3.2000e-
003

2.6000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2578
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 4.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 6 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0755 0.0755 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762
Total 4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0755 0.0755 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9500e-
003

0.0214 0.0147 4.0000e-
005

8.1000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2578
Total 1.9500e-
003

0.0214 0.0147 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.1000e-
004

3.2000e-
003

2.6000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.2317 3.2317 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2578
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 7 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0755 0.0755 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762
Total 4.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0755 0.0755 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0000e-
003

0.0434 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.6700e-
003

0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4751
Total 4.0000e-
003

0.0434 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 1.8100e-
003

0.0231 0.0103 1.6700e-
003

0.0119 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4751
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 8 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1886 0.1886 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1904
Total 9.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1886 0.1886 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1904
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0000e-
003

0.0434 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.6700e-
003

0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4751
Total 4.0000e-
003

0.0434 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 1.8100e-
003

0.0231 0.0103 1.6700e-
003

0.0119 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4751
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 9 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1886 0.1886 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1904
Total 9.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1886 0.1886 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1904
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0604 0.0604 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 204.5865 204.5865 0.0387 0.0000 205.5538 Total 0.1688 1.3420 1.4001 2.4700e-
003

0.0604 0.0604 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 204.5865 204.5865 0.0387 0.0000 205.5538 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 10 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.3300e-
003

1.3000e-
003

2.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

6.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.8944 1.8944 1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

1.9796
Worker 1.2200e-
003

7.9000e-
004

9.2900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.1500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

3.1700e-
003

8.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4772 2.4772 8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.5004
Total 1.3300e-
003

5.1200e-
003

0.0106 5.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.8500e-
003

1.0300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.3716 4.3716 9.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

4.4801
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1688 1.3420 1.4001 2.4700e-
003

0.0604 0.0604 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 204.5863 204.5863 0.0387 0.0000 205.5535 Total 0.1688 1.3420 1.4001 2.4700e-
003

0.0604 0.0604 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 204.5863 204.5863 0.0387 0.0000 205.5535 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 11 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.3300e-
003

1.3000e-
003

2.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

6.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.8944 1.8944 1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

1.9796
Worker 1.2200e-
003

7.9000e-
004

9.2900e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.1500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

3.1700e-
003

8.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

8.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4772 2.4772 8.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

2.5004
Total 1.3300e-
003

5.1200e-
003

0.0106 5.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
003

5.0000e-
005

3.8500e-
003

1.0300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.3716 4.3716 9.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

4.4801
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e-
004

6.1900e-
003

5.9300e-
003

0.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 23.9983
Total 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e-
004

6.1900e-
003

5.9300e-
003

0.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 23.9983
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 12 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.1000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2174 0.2174 0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.2272
Worker 1.3000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

0.0000 3.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.2797 0.2797 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2822
Total 1.4000e-
004

5.9000e-
004

1.1500e-
003

0.0000 4.5000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4971 0.4971 1.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

0.5094
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e-
004

6.1900e-
003

5.9300e-
003

0.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 23.9983
Total 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e-
004

6.1900e-
003

5.9300e-
003

0.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 23.9983
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 13 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.1000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2174 0.2174 0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.2272
Worker 1.3000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
003

0.0000 3.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.2797 0.2797 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2822
Total 1.4000e-
004

5.9000e-
004

1.1500e-
003

0.0000 4.5000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4971 0.4971 1.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

0.5094
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 14 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 15 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

6.0900e-
003

9.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2784
Total 0.2036 6.0900e-
003

9.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2784
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 16 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0304 0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0307
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0304 0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0307
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2027 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.0000e-
004

6.0900e-
003

9.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2784
Total 0.2036 6.0900e-
003

9.0500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2784
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 17 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0304 0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0307
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0304 0.0304 0.0000 0.0000 0.0307
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 18 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.1229 9.8000e-
004

0.1239 0.0329 9.2000e-
004

0.0338 0.0000 111.3438 111.3438 5.7400e-
003

6.1000e-
003
113.3059
Unmitigated 0.0521 0.0884 0.4928 1.2000e-
003

0.1229 9.8000e-
004

0.1239 0.0329 9.2000e-
004

0.0338 0.0000 111.3438 111.3438 5.7400e-
003

6.1000e-
003
113.3059

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 113.28 114.48 102.60 327,905 327,905 Total 113.28 114.48 102.60 327,905 327,905
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 48.40 15.90 35.70 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 19 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.8534 8.8534 1.4300e- 003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.8534 8.8534 1.4300e- 003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 20 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843
Total 1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
288451 1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843
Total 1.5600e-
003

0.0133 5.6600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 15.3928 15.3928 3.0000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

15.4843
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 21 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
95687.5 8.8534 1.4300e-
003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
Total 8.8534 1.4300e-
003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
95687.5 8.8534 1.4300e-
003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
Total 8.8534 1.4300e-
003

1.7000e-
004

8.9409
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 22 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1078 5.5100e-
003

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784
Unmitigated 0.1078 5.5100e-
003

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784

0.0203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.3000e-
004

4.4900e-
003

1.9100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.1985 5.1985 1.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.2294
Landscaping 2.6700e-
003

1.0300e-
003

0.0890 0.0000 4.9000e-
004

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.1456 0.1456 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.1490
Total 0.1078 5.5200e-
003

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.5000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 23 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.3000e-
004

4.4900e-
003

1.9100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.6000e-
004

0.0000 5.1985 5.1985 1.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.2294
Landscaping 2.6700e-
003

1.0300e-
003

0.0890 0.0000 4.9000e-
004

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.1456 0.1456 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.1490
Total 0.1078 5.5200e-
003

0.0909 3.0000e-
005

8.5000e-
004

0.0000 5.3440 5.3440 2.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

5.3784
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 24 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207
Unmitigated 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.781848 /

0.492904

0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207
Total 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 25 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.781848 /

0.492904

0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207
Total 0.7991 0.0256 6.1000e-
004

1.6207
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Unmitigated 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 26 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

12.24 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Total 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

12.24 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Total 2.4846 0.1468 0.0000 6.1555
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 27 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/17/2023 1:32 PMPage 28 of 28 FNLP - single family analysis GHG - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1 EXHIBIT B
MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for Environmental Assessment Plan Amendment/Rezone Application No. P22-01086 and Development Permit Application No. P21-06232 April 5, 2023 PURSUANT TO CERTIFIED MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). It was certified as part of the Fresno City Council's approval of the MEIR for the Fresno General Plan (Fresno City Council Resolution 2014-225, adopted December 18, 2014).

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

A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-wide Program
F - Not Applicable
The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

2 MITIGATION MEASURE - AESTHETICS WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

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

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
and Planning
and
Development
Department
X
MM AES-2: Lighting for Public Facilities. Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
and Planning
and
Development
Department
X
MM AES-3: Lighting for Non-Residential Uses. Lighting systems for non-residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
and Planning
and
Development
Department
X
MM AES-4: Signage Lighting. Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
and Planning
and
Development
Department
X
MM AES-5: Use of Non-Reflective Materials. Materials used on building facades shall be non-reflective.

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
and Planning
and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
3 MM AG-1: Consistent with Policy RC-9-c of the approved General Plan, the City, in coordination with regional partners or independently, shall establish a Farmland Preservation Program by 2025. The intent of the Farmland Preservation Program would be that, when Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are proposed for development and
converted to urban uses within the Sphere of Influence 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 establish thresholds of significance and provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Restrictive Covenants or Deeds
• In Lieu Fees
• Mitigation Banks
• Fee Title Acquisition
• Conservation Easements
• Land Use Regulations
The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some or all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

Prior to the adoption of the Farmland Preservation Program, projects shall be required to comply with CEQA to address potential environmental impacts on an individual basis.

X
MITIGATION MEASURE – AIR QUALITY WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM AIR-1: Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction related air Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
4 pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted threshold of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions include but are not limited to:
• Install temporary construction power supply meters on site and use these to provide power to electric power
tools whenever feasible. If temporary electric power is available on site, forbid the use of portable gasoline- or diesel-fueled electric generators.
• Use of diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on diesel equipment, as feasible.
• Maintain equipment according to manufacturers’
specifications.
• Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes (per California Air Resources Board [CARB]
regulation).
• Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and times of exposure.
• Avoid excavation and grading during wet weather.
• Limit on-site construction routes and stabilize
construction entrance(s).
• Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely
necessary.
• Sweep up spilled dry materials (e.g., cement, mortar, or dirt track-out) immediately. Never attempt to wash them away with water. Use only minimal water for dust
control.
• Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting or tarp.
5 MM AIR-2: Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD- adopted thresholds of significance, the Planning and
Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate
an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in
appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and
loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include
signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB
Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR]
Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
6 neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery
powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels;
installing the maximum possible number of solar energy
arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy.
• Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots.
• Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street- sweepers with HEPA filters.
• Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
• Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound
(VOC) cleaning products.

MM AIR-3: Prior to future discretionary approval for projects that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
7 best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile
delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or
• Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions
associated with electricity generation at the project site.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

The City will, in addition to noticing procedures in the Development Code, notice all residents within 1,000 feet of a proposed warehouse project before any discretionary project approval, and consider “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” published in March 2021 by Xavier Becerra, Attorney General State of California before any discretionary approval of a specific warehouse project where applicable."
MM AIR-4: Locate sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with
recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
8 thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

MM AIR-5: Require developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures
recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits or
permits to
operate
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM BIO-1: Construction of a proposed project shall avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special-status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any special-status species. If a special-status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case- by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM BIO-2: Direct or incidental take of any state or federally listed species shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If Prior to issuance Planning and Development X
9 construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the CDFW 2081 and USFWS Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes shall take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case- by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.
of grading or
construction
permits
Department,
California
Department of
Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), U.S.

Fish and Wildlife
Service
(USFWS)
MM BIO-3: Development within the Planning Area shall avoid, where possible, special-status natural communities and
vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special- status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special-status natural community or suitable habitat for special- status species, compensatory habitat-based mitigation is required under CEQA and CESA. Mitigation shall consist of preserving on- site habitat, restoring similar habitat or purchasing off-site credits from an approved mitigation bank. Compensatory mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio shall be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special-status natural communities to a less than significant level. Agreed-upon mitigation ratios shall depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special- status species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status natural communities and vegetation communities shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
10 MM BIO-4: Proposed projects within the Planning Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor shall be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer shall be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the Director of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all proposed project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency
consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of
consultation.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
MM BIO-5: A pre-construction clearance survey, following current CDFW protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development X
11 biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community with potential to occur in the Planning Area, compensatory habitat-based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off-site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special- status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat-based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case-by-case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

Department,

CDFW, USFWS
MM BIO-6: A pre-construction clearance survey, following current USACE protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or USACE to develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway. The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
MM BIO-7: Prior to project approval, a pre-construction clearance survey, following current CDFW protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a special-status natural community or if it may result in direct or incidental impacts to special-status species associated with Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
12 riparian or wetland habitats. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall be obligated to address project-specific impacts to special-status species associated with riparian habitat through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special-status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

MM BIO-8: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland
mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
MM BIO-9: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Prior to issuance
of grading or
construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department,
CDFW
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – CULTURAL RESOURCES WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist Planning and
Development
Department to
review contract
specifications to
Planning and
Development
Department
X
13 shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these
resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

ensure inclusion
of provisions
included in
project-specific
mitigation
measure.

MM CUL-2: Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. The evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
14 • If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or
construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are
discovered during excavation and/or construction
activities, construction shall stop in the immediate
vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires
further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on the measures that shall
be implemented to protect the discovered resources,
including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are
determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological
resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.

Appropriate measures for significant resources could
include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery
excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of
mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term
preservation to allow future scientific study.
• If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the
forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information
Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance.

If the resources are found to be significant, measures
15 shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping,
incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In
addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and
construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If
additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the
procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

MM CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future
development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into Planning and
Development
Department to
review
construction
specifications to
ensure inclusion
of provisions
included in
mitigation
measure.

Planning and
Development
Department
X
16 account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

MITIGATION MEASURE – GEOLOGY AND SOILS WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM GEO-1: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence.

In the event that unique paleontological/geological
resources are discovered during excavation and/or
construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified
paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether
the resource requires further study. The qualified
paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City
on the measures that shall be implemented to protect
the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation
measures shall be identified by the monitor and
recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate
mitigation measures for significant resources could
include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery
excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
17 paleontological/geological resources recovered as a
result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long- term preservation to allow future scientific study.
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation
measures shall be identified by the qualified
paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include
avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for
excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The
monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified
paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or
construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

MM GEO-2: If the total area of ground disturbance from
installation of the cultivation operation is one (1) acre or more, the cultivator must enroll for coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 2009-0009-DWQ).

Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM GHG-1: Prior to the City’s approval of subsequent
discretionary projects, the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall confirm that development are consistent with the Recirculated GHG Reduction Planning and
Development
Department
shall review
Planning and
Development
Department
X
18 Plan Update (2021) and shall implement all measures deemed applicable to the project through the GHG Reduction Plan Update-Project Consistency Checklist (Appendix B to the GHG Reduction Plan Update).
project plans
during
environmental
review of
proposed
project, and
shall review
construction
specifications to
ensure inclusion
of applicable
measures.

MITIGATION MEASURE – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM HAZ-1: The City shall establish an alternative Emergency Operations Center in the event the current Emergency
Operations Center is under redevelopment or inaccessible.

Planning and
Development
Department to
establish
alternative
Emergency
Operations
Center prior to
commencement
of
redevelopment
or inaccessibility
of existing
Emergency
Operations
Center.

Fresno Fire
Department and
Mayor/ City
Manager’s
Office
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
19 MM HYD-1: The City shall continue to be an active participant in the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the implementation of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan in order to ensure that the Kings Subbasin has balanced levels of pumping and recharge.

Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM HYD-2: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned SDFCMP collection systems:
• Coordinate with FMFCD to implement the existing Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP) for
collection systems in drainage areas where the amount of imperviousness is unaffected by the change in land uses. • Coordinate with FMFCD to update the SDFCMP in those
drainage areas where the amount of imperviousness
increased due to the change in land uses to determine
the changes in the collection systems that would need to occur to provide adequate capacity for the stormwater
runoff from the increased imperviousness.
• As development is proposed, implement current SDFCMP
to provide stormwater collection systems that have
sufficient capacity to convey the peak runoff rates from the areas of increased imperviousness.
• Require developments that increase site imperviousness to install, operate, and maintain FMFCD approved on-site detention systems to reduce the peak runoff rates
resulting from the increased imperviousness to the peak runoff rates that will not exceed the capacity of the
existing stormwater collection systems.

Ongoing
Fresno
Metropolitan
Flood Control
District
(FMFCD),
Planning and
Development
Department,
and PW
X
MM HYD-3: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned SDFCMP retention basins: Prior to approval of development projects, coordinate with FMFCD to analyze the impacts to existing and planned retention basins to determine remedial Ongoing
FMFCD,
Planning and
Development
Department,
and PW
X
20 measures required to reduce the impact on retention basin capacity to less than significant. Remedial measures would include:

1. Increase the size of the retention basin through the purchase of more land or deepening the basin or a
combination for planned retention basins.

2. Require developments that increase runoff volume to
install, operate, and maintain, Low Impact Development
(LID) measures to reduce runoff volume to the runoff
volume that will not exceed the capacity of the existing retention basins.

MM HYD-4: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned SDFCMP urban detention (stormwater quality) basins:

Prior to approval of development projects, coordinate with FMFCD to determine the impacts to the urban detention basin weir overflow rates and determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on the detention basin capacity to less than significant. Remedial measures would include:

1. Modify overflow weir to maintain the suspended solids removal rates adopted by the FMFCD Board of Directors.

2. Increase the size of the urban detention basin to increase residence time by purchasing more land. The existing
detention basins are already at the adopted design
depth.

3. Require developments that increase runoff volume to
install, operate, and maintain, Low Impact Development
(LID) measures to reduce peak runoff rates and runoff
volume to the runoff rates and volumes that will not
exceed the weir overflow rates of the existing urban
detention basins.

Ongoing
FMFCD,
Planning and
Development
Department,
and PW
X
21 MM HYD-5: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned SDFCMP pump disposal systems:

1. Prior to approval of development projects, coordinate with FMFCD to determine the extent and degree to which
the capacity of the existing pump system will be
exceeded.

2. Require new developments to install, operate, and
maintain on-site detention facilities, consistent with
FMFCD design standards, to reduce peak stormwater
runoff rates to existing planned peak runoff rates.

3. Provide additional pump system capacity to maximum
allowed by existing permitting to increase the capacity to match or exceed the peak runoff rates determined by the SDFCMP.

Ongoing
FMFCD,
Planning and
Development
Department,
and PW

MM HYD-6: The City shall coordinate with FMFCD to develop and adopt a storm drainage update to the SDFCMP for the Southeast Development Area that is designed to collect, convey and dispose of runoff rates and volumes based on the planned land uses of the approved General Plan.

Ongoing
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – NOISE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM NOI-2: Construction Vibration. The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.

Prior to issuance
of any grading
or construction
permits
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – PUBLIC SERVICES WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM PSR-1: As future fire facilities are planned, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from fire facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
22 MM PSR-2: As future police facilities are planned, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from police facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM PSR-3: As future parks and recreational facilities are planned, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM PSR-4: As future public facilities are planned by the City of Fresno (e.g., court, library, and hospital facilities), environmental review of the proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from public facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MITIGATION MEASURE – UTILITIES WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
MM UTL-1: The City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and, at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City, the City shall not approve development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be evaluated for potential
environmental impacts and constructed by the City by
approximately 2025.
• Construct 65 new groundwater wells, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update. • Construct a 2.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T2) near the intersection of Clovis and
California Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and
Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T5) near the intersection of Ashlan and
Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
23 Chestnut Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and
Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T6) near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Highway 99, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct 50.3 miles of regional water transmission
mains ranging in size from 24- inch to 48-inch, in
accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014
Metro Plan Update.
• Construct 95.9 miles of 16-inch transmission grid mains, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.

Prior to initiating construction of any of the capacity improvement projects identified above, the City shall conduct appropriate environmental analyses for each project to
determine whether environmental impacts would occur.

MM UTL-2: The City shall evaluate the water conveyance system at the time discretionary projects are submitted and shall not approve development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be
evaluated for potential environmental impacts and constructed by the City after approximately the year 2035 and additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to
accommodate full buildout of the approved General Plan. • Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 1) within the northern part of the
Southeast Development Area.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 2) within the southern part of the
Southeast Development Area.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
24 MM UTL-3: The City shall evaluate the water supply system at the time discretionary projects are submitted and shall not approve development that would demand additional water until
additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be evaluated for potential environmental impacts and constructed by the City. • Construct an approximately 30 mgd expansion of the
existing northeast surface water treatment facility for a total capacity of 60 mgd, in accordance with Chapter 9
and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct an approximately 20 mgd surface water
treatment facility in the southwest portion of the City, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014
Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 25,000 AF/year recycled water facility as an expansion to the RWRF in accordance with the January
2014 City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources
Management Plan. This improvement is required after
the year 2025.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM UTL-4: The City shall evaluate the wastewater system at the time discretionary projects are submitted and shall not approve development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall evaluate the potential environmental impacts and construct the following improvements.
• Construct an approximately 70 mgd expansion of the
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility prior to flows
reaching 80 percent of rated capacity, and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
25 • Construct an approximately 0.49 mgd expansion of the North Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

MM UTL-5: The City shall evaluate the wastewater system at the time discretionary projects are submitted and shall not approve development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. After approximately the year 2025, the City shall evaluate the potential environmental impacts of, and construct the following improvements.
• Construct an approximately 24 mgd Wastewater
Treatment Facility within the Southeast Development
Area and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the
generation of wastewater is increased.

Construct an approximately 9.6 mgd expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste
discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM UTL-6: Consistent with the Sewer System Management Plan, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system at the time discretionary projects are submitted, and shall not approve development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided.

Prior to project
approval
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM UTL-7: At the time discretionary projects are submitted, the City shall require project-specific environmental evaluations for the expansion or relocation of electric, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities be completed prior to project approval.

Prior to project
approval
DPU and
Planning and
Development
Department
X
MM UTL-8: The City shall evaluate additional landfill locations at the time discretionary projects are submitted, and shall not approve development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.

Prior to project
approval
DPU and
Planning and
Development
Department
X
26

Fresno City CouncilMay 11, 2023

Fresno City Council
May 11, 2023