Exhibit N – Environmental Assessment (Including Studies) — Fresno City Council, June 29, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Exhibit N

CITY OF FRESNO

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
Plan Amendment/Rezone Application No. P22-00507 and
Development Permit Application No. P22-00505

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

Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, CA 93611

Attachments:

Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix G/Initial Study for a Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated November 2022

1 APPENDIX G

INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Environmental Checklist Form for:

Development Permit Application No. P22-00505 & Plan Amendment Rezone Application No. P22-00507

1. Project title:

Development Permit Application No. P22-00505 & Plan Amendment Rezone Application No. P22-00507

2. Lead agency name and address:

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

3. Contact person and phone number:

Enrique Aponte, Planner II
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8084

4. Project location:

The 1.23-acre project site ( Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [ APN]: 303-161-48, 303-161- 49, 303-161-50, 303-161-51, 303-161-52, and 303-161-53) is located at the northwest quadrant of Blackstone Avenue and Herndon Avenue and is bounded to the north by West Fir Avenue, to the east by North Sugar Pine Avenue, to the south by West Beechwood Avenue, and to the west by residential uses.

Figure 1 shows the site’s regional and local context. Figure 2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Soyla A. Reyna-Griffin
Valley Health Team, Inc.

Pinedale Community Health Center
P.O. Box 737
21890 West Colorado Avenue
San Joaquin, CA 93660

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

Existing Land Use: Residential – Medium Density
Planned Land Use: Residential – Medium Density
Bullard Community Plan
Pinedale Specific Plan
Proposed Land Use: Offices – Medical and Dental

SOURCE: Esri Topographic Map (2021)
I:\VHT2201\GIS\MXD\RegionalProjectLocation.mxd (3/30/2022) FIGURE 1
Valley Health Team Project
Regional Project Location
LEGEND
Project Location
Parcel Boundary
Fresno City Limit
Madera
County
Fresno
County
ÃÃ145
ÃÃ168
ÃÃ180
ÃÃ41
ÃÃ99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
0 250 500
FEET
'■V l-llll'JJPJ JV.'^ I I I'.-J.Jk- A.-1 "
I
j
OQ iOQ ■■■
LI -
z
VS n T-•:
349 ft_ Pinedale si
- W Minarets Ave E Minarets Ave.-L
3o
; I10IBZ >
z <*
fIlji UlXj
OW Birch Ave W Birch Ave E Birch Ave
2 K
iLr~ -
- E
-J. JJ "J cV >
W Spruce Ave E Spruce Ave
1 J J
bcusl Ave W bcust Ave
un nm □
CO
-Vj
--zII
03< %< -3 W Fir AveI' _ r
12 ED 3£] ' -z
J
W Beechwood Ave
5 *=OJi
•1
JJ_J Jj-'ULr =
i.J □
vr
r Herndon Ave
lEtHern'donrAv.el2343 ff
iW4H e r n d o'riTA'v el,W:Hern'donTAvei JU, L
-Jbuisiana
ct4W 3=1
jwiqn
a iSTT-i-
a
s * ° Q_ E Warner AveNevada 5 —$^ J' J JJ—
I Xujjjj-
> gJGbQilaaaitakA
0*fe
■
Pennsylvania <
5•-
: J?
Valencia Dr
•!J3nn E Mag 01 Aveh/
ft/ Oregon J
55 -/ s7 3 3
Seville Df
□Q£UQ CDD q
San Juan Dr
i
i
.) i1
T -jz
iU3I J"/. ^ U _
1 - I J”■s
rps ■JDe Soto Dr
/
/
j JJ_Q ■
an ilET
11 ?/ z
JJu Paz.Dr J
2 V* 9
Q
Li?p--* □ I J
o Ave
> <
8 LPJ
E bs Alios Ave
■b - IX
ft
3co
□ z
a s<L?
O
__ z_ _ _
SA
|>
□
W Beechwood AveW Beechwood Ave
W Fir AveW Fir Ave
W Spruce AveW Spruce Ave
W Herndon AveW Herndon Ave
N Sugar Pine AveN Sugar Pine Ave
W Herndon AveW Herndon Ave
E Magill AveE Magill Ave
N Blackstone AveN Blackstone Ave
N Blackstone AveN Blackstone Ave
N San Pablo AveN San Pablo Ave
N Abby StN Abby St
N Sugar Pine AveN Sugar Pine Ave
W Beechwood Ave
W Fir Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Sugar Pine Ave
W Herndon Ave
E Magill Ave
N Blackstone Ave
N Sugar Pine Ave
N Blackstone Ave
N San Pablo Ave
N Abby St

COMMERCIAL

SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

PINEDALE

COMMUNITY
CENTER
MOBILE

HOME PARK

PINEDALE

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
4000 200
Project Site Boundary
FEET
SOURCE: NearMap, 2/24/2022
I:\VHT2201\G\Fig 2_Aerial Photo of Site & Surrounding LU.ai (3/30/2022) FIGURE 2
Valley Health Team Project
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses J, r*..
f “I
i'm -•>
■-r*S •i '
US
K feji •
Ki v* l JViyl
-0;:• a//
” . /, 1
1 'SvjflV’ki
4“ ^
®/*L_ -
jrtfF
[M ^
4h ,' 1
«
3l \f)• ' A', *\
V? ,.:
r»m$ w i
. r. tel’ =? *i ^
mfi i
1 "*> «§ JfcJ
fit! t^r-g
Bf?
S v1* . a .. :rA \pEjgg
-TV-T-,
" 3SI f- -? -
.-ks~!Limm **■'••*' ;
3 ^-**21la,7* Lm£ Ml, "Si; Jin!
v. ...wwWl’ \t i A
• tv %
<sE
IJ*. iJl;
£ =6
p 1
»TJ _ -jpgj/n
4 S'ft ,;LELI I ,v‘; ✓ |$p^5: i,
& S* /H

31.*p
pm%
a v‘j *«rI • . "i , l.I f'n '
t
■ r -,m±. T'
*■1 f*-St
V- <
A
p.W 3.&
* -*i«M«Tr }
»#•5%T -:
- • ?
; ?> "■
;*r
v/ -;y /
^4 Cf//
‘-V'<t V- -> >•ft , '• jf*
m■
• -/
r r
• LnJ. p
-!
Ml
t ’it
Jjlfjp
&
fi5
■ •
i. f '3 I
VfVn wi»Shnn mn,
inHiinMlitiiiWi
> :,-wfcagrfAJ
-■ .
- / ,*? r',/e! -1
fl4§m«i.
■ •■]
;[jS£ - - n
m
i
i
L ^ =:A V1»Tw
iw^L>
, I* ’^V*■ \ J
1 3 ' jlten*r.f N
i
If
»-v J /t|
VI'W ’ ■ Is..-V
. k-, - i- ;r^i
\<%X-
^ vxz»7
' ■
fa
I F e9 L< f,: fi»
■ 'l BilLf; «fe
Pj"t-/ Kfe~r 1-
m i
* . |Plhw«t
[Tfi
. ■<■
F h' i!'L<h. ••■> I43$ 9L J& a r ijy?: r ^
.
# i > i
5s
.,*;
1 •■ .
1 I I ’’ f,• [7
® 13 ft OlV71'^. ’5;
■fr.
i5®i -W
■
*
A

11. ,.3j;
' i
i»
/i
l«rM M
*S?
w.^r ~
I»
Pfjp
# 3 :.-K iri f.lVV'-77v;
fc; q
• ’•• 1 »?*H
aw-iw^'
i=~j
5“'
9 V
i»
1 I s«I -:?
■ I A Hill
% Mill C2i» 1
,rou .# js*
4 r:« \b -i j;
> ' "5* :/ • k i
--T“ “3'a/"e >4; ■-
HI<
h ”I J.;
1;
—i-
fjfji rL3iP.
. 1 !
t
i Ij
• H*uLsiLM
1 :g f it s O •■}ft
Wf.' ? 7”,3
C£'- ’ ,
K,.# ’
f.
,•7 L'fi ” JiEr t_
LSA
|>
4 7. Zoning:

Existing Zoning: RS-5 (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density) Proposed Zoning: CG (General Commercial)

8. Description of project:

Development Permit Application No. P22-00505 and Plan Amendment Rezone Application No. P22-00507 was filed by Valley Health Team, Inc . The applicant proposes to construct an 11, 664-square-foot medical clinic and associated parking, circulation, and infrastructure improvements on the approximately 1.23-acre site.

Project Characteristics

The proposed project would consist of the development of an approximately 11, 664- square-foot, 28- foot-tall single-story medical clinic in the Pinedale community . The proposed project would include a total of 21,494 square feet of paved area and 15,626 square feet of landscaped area. The proposed project would also include a c oncrete masonry unit (CMU) along the western project site boundary.

Figure 3 shows the
project site plan.

The hours of operation for the proposed project would be Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The proposed project would employ approximately 40 staff
members. The proposed project would contain the following rooms and offices: exam, treatment, labs, x-ray, behavioral health, dental, and chiropractic. The proposed project is anticipated to serve 5,000 patients and provide 21,450 visits per year or 82 clients per day, including telemedicine. It is assumed that telemedicine appointments would account for approximately 25 percent of all appointments.

The proposed project would include new on- site exterior lighting, with approximately 48 new lights on the project site and would install approximately 7,128 square feet of future solar panels on the roof area of the proposed clinic building. In addition, t he proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen standard building m easures and Title 24 standards.

The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment from Residential – Medium Density to General Commercial and a rezone to from RS-5 (Residential Single Family, Medium Density) to CG (General Commercial).

NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Centerline Design, LLC, January 2022
I:\VHT2201\G\Fig 3_Site Plan.ai (4/6/2022)
FIGURE 3
Valley Health Team Project
Site Plan
lV//////////////////////,i 1 1
'/////////////////////////A\ 9
99999999999999999999999^
jL
\ \^V////////////////////////A //w /\\
I ,_A_.

W. FIR 9 9 QT ©
—v"<?
1\E \\9-^-
\9>H ®^h -®
4I
H1
t
\*= \
A?'
% 9\ ® 4
16'
■m (Ain w------------ ■ ■ *a i ¥
Hi, \ 2'A
%\\
11 \
2 KSsf 'A\\ \r
M1 -I-I
\ 9\ va \\__O -® 1“H ©\

ADJACENT
PROPERTY \\A__C K %U I
Hi
9t\NJ.C.
*~ii—EHi—i1- !i[:
rn 9\(ZONE RS-5)
\
L U
&•Z- « V\
'■
«■ 9
\&
TTP. 9|j
99 9o2O'
t\+ -@V5>
@rrp. ^ 2
ETf \\7 >v
iSi~
t -0 \\ro d
i\% \~>-X.
p ll© RjgHS?. i \\ 9©
m i \99©
\9 f X© !
Ji
• \9t
\®A
\V-
9=©Mfe) ©
\I
\
TYP. '10'-4* I
n
Vi&:-

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
\
TTP.15
\NJ.C.

A’-6’TYP~.._(ZONE RS-5) \/ \®a
; = ,<52 ;
\\ W£V9 \, V® If
HA© k\
9 ^9999999^ ■i
\99 TYP. Jt999 \9
ns
\9 9
Ao)
9 \9 99 t99 9
999999 rrPr -TtP^999 l5'-6' 27'
\ \g 9 \A X£. \
i
9 9
I \!\ q'-o*
Sl)—®
1H§.
9 Ai \9 ;
®\9 I \xx9 w.

IR9 9 —($) \9
I
9 14
////////////A \9 ©9 H>-y9 \xo.:/ ^ \ <§) \ \TYP27'
4 i
rX;
© \r© _
Ji99—
2, \9 NgK.
\T1 J9I4 ¥[
^9g) /
R C (T
/M
\
l\ /I l\ ^ ia
. . ©W. BEECHWOOD AVE.
® @ +■© ©
\
•4-y—rr if
.. -
X\l 1/ 'r z /
\
lj
I
999
i!
LSA
I1
6 Access, Circulation, and Parking
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided through two 27- foot-wide ingress and egress driveways located along West Beechwood Avenue and North Sugar Pine Avenue. Vehicle circulation within the project site would be provided by a network of two-way, 27- foot-wide driveways. The proposed project would include 56 vehicle
parking spaces, including two accessible parking stal ls, one van accessible parking stall, and six stalls in the future would be designated for electric vehicle charging stations. In addition, the proposed project would provide six bicycle parking spaces, including three long-term bicycle lockers and three short-term bicycle racks.

Landscaping
As identified above, the proposed project would include approximately 15,626 square feet of landscaped area.

Utilities and Infrastructure
The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and natural gas infrastructure. Proposed utility connections are discussed below.

Water and Wastewater
Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be prov ided by the Pinedale County Water District (PCWD). The proposed project would connect to existing water and wastewater service lines located along North Sugar Pine Avenue and West Beechwood Avenue.

Stormwater
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) would provide flood control and urban storm water services to the project site. Stormwater from the project site would be drained through surface drainage infrastructure along North Sugar Pine Avenue and West Beechwood Avenue and redirected southwest of the site towards a nearby ponding basin.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas services to the site are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Existing underground utilit
y connections and gas mains provide
electricity and gas to the project site. The proposed project would connect to existing service lines in the vicinity of the project site.

Grading and Construction
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a period of 12 to 14 months starting in July 2023. As discussed above, the proposed project would include the demolition of two existing on- site structures, totaling 1,387 square feet. Site preparation would include removal of rocks, debris, and vegetation from the project site. Construction of the proposed project would comply with City standards, including the City’s current building code, landscape standards, and lighting standards. In addition, the project site would be graded similar to other developments throughout the City.

7 APPROVALS/PERMITS
The following approvals are required by the City of Fresno:
• Rezone from Residential Single- Family District (RS- 5) to Commercial -General District (CG)
• General Plan Amendment
• Adoption of the IS/MND
• Water connection(s)
• Sanitary sewer connection(s)

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North Public Facility –
Elementary School PI (Public and Institutional)
Public Facility –
Elementary School
East Corridor – Center
Mixed Use
CMX (Corridor/Center Mixed
Use)
General Heavy
Commercial
South
Residential –
Medium Density/
Corridor – Center
Mixed Use
(immediate
parcels)
RS-5 (Residential Single
Family, Medium Density)/
CMX/EA (Corridor – Center
Mixed Use/ Express Way Area)
Residential –
Medium Density/
General Heavy
Commercial
West Residential –
Medium Density
RS-5 (Residential Single-
Family, Medium Density)
Residential –
Medium Density

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• Pacific Gas & Electric, electrical and natural gas connection • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural

8 landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno Coun ty has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

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

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) . A certified letter was mailed to the above- mentioned tribes on September 19, 2022. The 30- day comment period ended on October 19, 2022. Both tribes did not request consultation.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

9 DE
TERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _________
__________________________________________________________ Enrique Aponte, Planner II Date EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. For pur
poses of this Initial St udy, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “N
o Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Les
s Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. 12/9/2022

10 c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant.

d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like t he one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.

If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5. "Negative Declaration : Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant t o the tiering, an effec t has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

11 c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to whic h they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

12 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X

b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X

c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X

d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant landscape feature. An impact on scenic vistas is considered significant if it substantially diminishes, blocks, or impedes an expansive view of a significant landscape feature from a public vantage point.

The project site is located in a developed area in the Pinedale community and is not located in an area with expansive or far field views. The proposed project would include the construction of an approximately 11,664-square-foot, 28-foot-tall single-story medical

13 clinic. Adjacent parcels primarily consist of single-family residential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic buildings located on the subject property that have been identified as important scenic resources or would otherwise constitute significant landscape features.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially diminish any scenic vistas within or near the project area and would likewise not substantially block or impede surrounding views. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less -than-significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and no mitigation is required.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

There are no trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic buildings located on the subject property that have been identified as important scenic resources or would otherwise constitute significant landscape features. Additionally, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the immediate vicinity of the pr oject site. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) mapping of State Scenic Highways, 1 the County of Fresno has one officially designated State Scenic Highways located along State Route (SR-) 180, east of the City of Fresno. Th ree eligible State Scenic Highways are also located within the County of Fresno, the nearest which is located along SR -168 east of the City of Clovis. Since there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the immediate vicinity of the project site, the project would not impact a designated State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, the eligibility of the three State Scenic Highways, scenic resources located within the highway segments or its viewshed would not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, no impact on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The project site is primarily flat and developed with two existing on- site structures, including a 923-square-foot single-family dwelling unit and a 464-square-foot unattached garage. As identified above, nearby parcels consist mostly of single-family residential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. The proposed project would include a new single -story medical clinic and although the proposed project woul d change the visual characteristics of the project site by redeveloping the site, the design of the project would be consistent with the visual character within the project area. The project site is zoned Residential Single-Family Medium Density (RS-5) and would require a General Plan amendment and rezone to General Commercial (CG). However, the character of the

1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Mapping of State Scenic Highways. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways (accessed May 2022).

14 proposed medical clinic would be compatible with the surrounding uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings, and as a result, a less-than- significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project site is located in an urbanized area, which is subject to preexisting exterior lighting from surrounding development and existing street lighting. As described in the Project Description, the proposed project would include new on-site exterior lighting, with approximately 48 new lights on the project site and would install approximately 7,128 square feet of future solar panels on the roof area of the proposed clinic building. As such, the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the area in the form of exterior lighting and solar panels . As identified above, nearby parcels consist mostly of single-family residential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School; as such, the project area contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing residential, commercial, and school buildings. Therefore, new sources of light and glare associated with the project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources. Solar panels can reflect sunlight when the sun is at an angle to the solar panel in relationship to the viewer. However, the reflectance would be temporary and not occur at night. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR]) standards would ensure that light and glare impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the surrounding urban area, and impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not res ult in any potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, and no mitigation is required.

15 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Cal ifornia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monito-
ring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of fo rest land
or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The project site is located within an urbanized area of the Pinedale community within the City of Fresno. The project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2 The
development of the project site would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non- agricultural use. The proposed project would result in no impact to the conversion of Prime Farmland, U nique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non- agricultural use, and no mitigation is required.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

The project site is designated Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5). The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract , and no mitigation is required.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

2 California Department of Conservation, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed May 2022).

17 The project site is located within an existing urban area and is zoned within the Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5) district within the City of Fresno. The project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as def ined by Government Code section 51104(g)), and no mitigation is required.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The proposed project would not convert forest land to non-forest use and would result in no impact to the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no mitigation is required.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Please refer to discussions a) and c) of this section. The project site is located within an existing urban environment and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, no impact to changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds for
these pollutants)?
X

b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X

c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The City of Fresno is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is resp onsible for air quality regulation within the eight -county San Joaquin Valley region. Both the State and the federal government have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O
3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), lead, and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as non- attainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non- attainment for O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5 for State standards.

19 CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the SJVA B into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8- Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 75 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.

To ensure the SJVAB’s continued attai nment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) PM
10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 standards to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012.

For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -1 would further reduce construction dust impacts. As discussed below, long- term operational emissions associated with the proposed project, including area, energy, and mobile source emissions, would also not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant with mitigation.

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

The SJVAB is designated as non- attainment for O
3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and
non-attainment for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5 for State standards. The SJVAPCD’s non- attainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non- attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively

20 considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project- level construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.

Short-Term Construction Emissions. During construction, short -term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NO
x, reactive organic gases (ROG), directly emitted
particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM
10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM 10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM
10). With the impleme ntation of Regulation VII I
measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust -related PM
10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment
powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

The SJVAPCD has established construction emissions thresholds on an annual basis as shown in Table 1 below. Construction emissions for the proposed project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in July 2023 and continue for a period or 12 to 14 months, ending in 2024. Other precise details of construction activities are unknown at this time; therefore, default assumptions (e.g. , construction worker and

21 truck trips and fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used. Construction-related emissions are presented in Table 1. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 1: Project Construction Emissions (Tons per Year) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2023 0.1 1.2 0.9 <0.1 0.1 0.1
2024 0.1 1.1 0.9 <01 0.1 <0.1
Maximum Annual Construction
Emissions 0.1 1.2 0.9 <0.1 0.1 0.1
SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (May 2022).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides

As shown in Table 1, construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD threshold for annual construction emissions for the proposed project. In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for dust contr ol during construction. These control measures are intended to reduce the amount of PM10 emissions during the construction period. Implementation of the fugitive dust control measures outlined in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure that the proposed proj ect complies with Regulation VIII and further reduces the short -term construction period air quality impacts. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -1, construction of the proposed project would result in a less -than- significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Long-Term Operational Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment).

PM
10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug-in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with

22 cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.

Emission estimates for operation of the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 2. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were based on the project’s trip generation estimate, as identified in Section XVII, Transportation. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 406 average daily trips.

The primary emissions associated with the proposed project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project; emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table 2.

Table 2: Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy Source Emissions <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile Source Emissions 0.2 0.2 1.4 <0.1 0.3 0.1
Total Project Operation
Emissions 0.2 0.3 1.4 <0.1 0.3 0.1
SJVAPCD Significance
Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (May 2022).

The results shown in Table 2 indicate the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual CO, NOx, ROG, SO x, PM 10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. As a result, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the

23 Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions as required by Mitigation Measure AIR -1.

Project construction emissions would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a significant source of long- term operational emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

During construction, the various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during project construction or operation, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed project and implemented at the construction site:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• When materials are transported off site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
• All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)

24 • Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of out-door storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emission utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X

d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X

25 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

DISCUSSION

Project Setting. The project site is located along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley floor in the Fresno County in the northeastern quarter of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fresno North, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (refer to Figure 1).

The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Sub- region of the California Floristic Province and with in the Gates Lake watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code # 180300090701). The project site is flat with almost no topographic variation and is at approximately 350 feet (92 meters) above mean sea level in elevation. There are no natural drainage features , depress ional wetlands, or riparian areas present with in the project site.

Methods. LSA biologists conducted a literature review and records search to identify the existence and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special -status plant and animal species in the vicinity of the project site. Federal and State lists of sensitive species were also examined. Current electronic database records reviewed included the following:

• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California. Records fro m nine United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles surrounding the project site ( Fresno South, Malaga, Conejo, Caruthers, Raisin, Kearney Park, Herndon, Fresno North, and Clovis ) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.

• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and

26 Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four specific categories or “lists” of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. All the plants constituting California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are intended to meet the status definitions of “threatened” or “endangered” in the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the California Fish and Game Code and are considered by CNPS to be eligible for State listing.

At the discretion of the CEQA lead agency, impacts to these species may be analyzed as such, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(c) and 15380. Plants in Rank 3 (limited information; review list), Rank 4 (limited distribution; watch list), or that are considered Locally Unusual and Significant may be analyzed under CEQA if there is sufficient information to assess potential significant impacts. Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Online System, which lists all proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species managed by the Endangered Species Program of the USFWS that have the potential to occur on or near a particular site.

This database also lists all known critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, and migratory birds that could potenti ally be impacted by activities from a proposed project. An IPaC Trust Resource Report was generated for the project area.

• Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site.

• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously identified in the survey area.

• eBird: eBird is a real -time, online checklist program launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society. It provides rich data sources for basic information on bird abundance and distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. eBird occurrence records within the project site and a 5-mile radius around the project site were reviewed in April 2022.

In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for developments in the project vicinity, and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.

Field Survey. A general biological survey of the project site was conducted by LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald on April 8, 2022. The project site was surveyed on foot, and all biological resources observed were noted and mapped. The field survey took place on a sunny day with weather conditions conducive to the detection of plant and animal species.

27 Vegetation. The project site is strictly upland in nat ure with scattered ruderal/invasive plant species and is mostly disturbed/barren ground. No trees or shrubs are present within the site. Ongoing soil disturbance and the resulting competitive exclusion by invasive nonnative plants limit the potential for native flora to occur within the project site. No native or special-status vegetation communities exist within the project site.

A total of 10 vascular plant species were identified within the project site during the April 2022 field survey. All 10 plant species represent nonnative taxa, reflecting a high level of disturbance within the project site.

Wildlife. A total of three wildlife species were observed, killdeer ( Charadrius vociferus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) , and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos ), within the project site. Each of these species commonly occur in and around urban developments.

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Special-Status Natural Communities. No special -status natural communities or conservation areas exist within the project site or in adjacent parcels. The project site is completely isolated and distant from all special -status natural communities that occur in the region. Therefore, no speci al-status natural community would be impacted by the proposed project.

Special-Status Plants. Fourteen special -status vascular plant species are known to occur in general project vicinity. No special -status plants have been documented within the project site or in adjacent parcels. The rare plant species that were identified in the literature review have specialized habitat requirements (i.e., they occur on predominantly alkaline soils, woodland, riparian, or wetland habitats, etc.) that do not occur withi n the project site.

Historic anthropogenic disturbances have greatly altered the natural hydrologic regimes and have either eliminated or greatly impacted the pre- settlement habitats needed to support the special-status plant species identified in the CN DDB and CNPS queries. As such, the specific habitats, soil substrates or “micro-climates” necessary for special-status plant species to occur are absent within the boundaries of the project site. Based on site observations coupled with the habitat suitability analysis, no special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project site. It is also unlikely that any source populations exist in adjacent or nearby parcels. Therefore, special -status plants would not be impacted by the proposed project.

Special-Status Animals. Thirty-five special-status animal species are known to occur in the region and are considered absent or unlikely to occur on the project site. The historic anthropogenic disturbances with in the project site and adjacent parcels ( i.e., roads,

28 residential development, etc.) have greatly altered, eliminated, or impacted the pre- settlement habitats needed to support the special -status animal species identified in the CNDDB and USFWS queries. There are no known occurrences of any speci al-status animal species within the project site, and none were observed during the April 2022 field survey.

The project site has the potential to support the ground-nesting and disturbance-tolerant bird species such as killdeer and mourning dove, which were observed within project site during the April 2022 survey. Nearly all native birds are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activiti es that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 1 through August 31) have potential to result in the mortality/ disturbance of nesting birds.

If unmitigated or unavoided, potential impacts on nesting birds could be considered potentially significant. However, conducting a pre -construction survey and avoiding disturbance to any active bird nest(s) would ensure that no impacts to protected nesting birds would occur. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 would effectively mitigate any impacts on special -status species to less -than-significant levels.

Critical Habitat. The project site is not located within or adjacent to critical habitat.

Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts to critical habitat, and no mitigation is required.

Summary. No special-status plant or animal species would be impacted the proposed project. However, the proposed project has potential to impact nesting birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 impacts on nesting birds would be avoided and the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation by the CDFW or USFWS is present on the site. The project would be constructed within previously disturbed and barren areas surrounded by urban development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact related to a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS. No mitigation is required.

29 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

The project site is strictly upland in nature and there are no records of wetlands or potential jurisdictional drainage features existing within the project site or within the vicinity of the project site. There would be no impact on state or federally protected wetlands, and no mitigation is required.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The project site is isolated from natural areas and is surrounded by existing residential developments, roads, and other anthropogenic land uses. Furthermore, the site does not contain habitat that would serve as an important corridor for animals m oving locally, regionally, or in broader migrations. The wildlife species that could occur in the project vicinity are adapted to the urban- wildland interface. The noise, vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas would only tem porarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. These indirect effects could temporarily alter migration behaviors, territories, or foraging habitats in select areas.

However, because these are temporary effec ts, it is likely that wildlife already living and moving in close proximity to urban development would alter their normal functions for the duration of the project construction and then reestablish these functions once all temporary construction effects have been removed. The proposed project would not place any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or interfere with habitat connectivity. No adverse effects on wildlife movement are anticipated, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No sensitive species or habitat are located within the project site. Trees subject to l ocal ordinances are also absent from the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation is required.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County and the City of Fresno. This HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species

30 and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The project site is not located within a designated HCP reserve area and the project would not impact any covered species. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E HCP or any other regional conservation plan. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO -1: If project construction activities occur during nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for active bird nests at the project site within 14 days of the onset of these activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist shall identify a suitable construction- free buffer around the nest. This buffer shall be identified with flagging or fencing (or otherwise clearly demarcated) and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X

b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

31 DISCUSSION

A Cultural Resource Assessment
3 was prepared for the proposed project by Peak &
Associates, Inc., which is included as Appendix B. The Cultural Resource Assessment included a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Inf ormation Center (SSJVIC) to identify prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources in the project area, additional background research, and a pedestrian field survey of the project area. The analysis in this Cultural Resources section is based on the results of the Cultural Resource Assessment.

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria: 1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical r esources include built - environment resources and archaeological sites.

The proposed project would include the demolition of two existing on- site structures, including a 923-square-foot single-family dwelling unit and a 464-square-foot unattached garage at 49 West Fir Street. As discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment, these buildings are over 50 years of age; therefore, they are recorded and evaluated for significance under the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project will impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that does any of the following:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

3 Peak & Associates, Inc., 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Valley Health Team Project Area, Pinedale, County of Fresno, California. March 3.

32 In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states that t he fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Under CRHR C riterion A, the site must “be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.” The Cultural Resource Assessment found that the residence and detached garage do not appear to be associated with any specific, significant contribution.

For a property to be eligible under Criterion B of the CRHR, the features must be associated with persons important in the past. The Cultural Resource Assessment determined that there is no evidence to suggest that the residence and detached garage were ever associated with a significant person in our past.

For CRHR Criterion C, the resource must embody “the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.” As discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment, Minimal Traditional Style homes represented the one of the most economical to build residential unit layouts available an d was widely advertised as such during the 1930s and 1940s. The Cultural Resource Assessment concluded that the residence at 49 West Fir Avenue is a slightly less typical, but still very common, example of this widely built subtype.

For Criterion D, there were no associated archeological deposits observed during the field inspection and recordation and it is unlikely given the degree of ground disturbance surrounding the buildings that a buried, undiscovered deposit would be present.

As such, based on C riteria A through D, t he Cultural Resource Assessment found that the residence and garage do not meet the CRHR criteria to be considered a historical resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

According to the State CEQA Guidelines , “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2).

33 The Cultural Resource Assessment found that there were no associated archeological deposits observed during the field inspection and recordation and it is unlikely given the degree of ground disturbance surrounding the buildings that a buried, undiscovered deposit would be present . However, there is a potential for unknown archaeological resources to be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 requires that if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work in the area would halt and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted and consulted regarding how to appropriately address the situation. This would minimize or eliminate any potential for an adverse change to the significance of any discovered archaeological resources.

Therefore, adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 would reduce potential impacts to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 to less than significant with mitigation.

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. As discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment, i n the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Fresno County Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.

If the Fresno County Cor oner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

After notification, the NAHC will follow the procedures outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, that include notification of most likely descendants (MLDs), and recommendations for treatment of the remains. The MLDs will have 24 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendations (PRC Section 5097.98).

Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL- 2 would reduce potential impacts to unknown human remains to less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event the event that archaeological resources are identified during project activities, work should be halted immediately within 50 feet of

34 the find until a qualified professional archaeologist is contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find and determine if any additional study or treatment of the find is warranted. The archaeologist should develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery per California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(f). Additional studies could include, but would not be limited to, collection and documentation of artifacts, documentation of the cultural resources on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms, or subsurface testing. If determined appropriate by the qualified archaeologist, archaeological monitoring should commence and continue until grading and excavation are complete or until t he monitoring archaeologist determines, based on field observations and in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, that there is little likelihood of encountering additional archaeological cultural resources. Archaeological monitoring may be reduced from full-time to part-time or spot-checking if determined appropriate by the qualified archaeologist based on monitoring results. Upon completion of any monitoring activities, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of monitoring activities. The final version of this report should be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: 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 PR C 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 cul tural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

35 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VI. ENERGY – Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.

Construction-Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over approximately 12 to 14 months. The proposed project would require demolition, grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, and construction of the residences. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less -than- significant impact during project construction.

Operational Energy Use. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle and

36 truck trips associated with the project. Energy and natural gas consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod.

In addition, the proposed building would be constructed to 2019 Title 24 standards, which was included in CalEEMod inputs. Electricity and natural gas usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 3.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project-related trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed project would result in approximately 794,624 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for light ‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020.
4 Therefore, using the average fuel economy estimates for 2020 the proposed project would result in the consumption of approximately 34,699 gallons of fuel (gasoline and diesel) per year. Table 3 shows the estimated potential increased electricity and natural gas demand, and fuel consumption associated with the proposed project.

Table 3: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Land Use Electricity Use
(kWh per year)
Natural Gas Use
(therms per year)
Fuel Consumption
(gallons per year)
Medical Office Building 103,428 1,512 34,699
Parking Lot 7,840 0 0
Total 111,268 1,512 34,699
Source: LSA (May 2022).
kWh = kilowatt-hours

As shown in Table 3, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 111,268 kilowatt -hours (kWh) per year. In 2020, California consumed approximately 279,510 gigawatt -hours (GWh) or 279,510,007,246 kWh. 5 Of
this total, Fresno County consumed 8,017 GWh or 8,017,830,742 kWh. 6 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately <0.1 percent of Fresno County’s total electricity demand.

The estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 1,512 therms per year, as shown in Table 3 . In 2020, California consumed approximately 12,331,530,178 therms, while Fresno County consumed approximately 325 millio n therms or approximately 325,915,257 therms. 7 Therefore, natural gas
demand associated with the proposed project would only be approximately <0.1 percent of Fresno County’s total natural gas demand.

4 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). “Table 4‐ 23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average -fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed May 2022).
5 California Energy Commission (CEC) , 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service.

Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed May 2022).
6 Ibid.
7 CEC, 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website:
www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed May 2022).

37 In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. As shown above in Table 3, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 34,699 gallons of fuel per year.

Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 157 million gallons of diesel and approximately 375 million gallons of gasoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in Fresno County in 2022. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California.

In addition, proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for medical uses.

PG&E is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity and natural gas services. In 2021 , a total of 50 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy.
8 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017, and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less -than-significant impact during project operation. As such, the proposed project would not result in a potential significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. No mitigation is required.

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and

8 PG&E, 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/ what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_clean energy (accessed May 2022).

38 encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The most recently CEC adopted energy report s are the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report
9 and 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update 10. The Integrated Energy Policy Reports provide the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Report s cover a broad range of topics, including implementation of S enate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged com munities, demand response, transmission and landscape- scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

As indicated above, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Reports. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially signi ficant impacts related to energy, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

9 California Energy Commission, 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket # 21-IEPR-01.
10 California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket # 22-IEPR-01.

39 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off -
site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 -1-
B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X

e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X

40 DISCUSSION

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., 11,000 years). Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the project vicinity. The closest active faults are the Nunez Fault, located approximately 5 6 miles from the project site, and the Ortigalita Fault, located approximately 61 miles from the project site. Due to the distance of these known faults, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault would occur. No mitigation is required.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

The City of Fresno is located in an area with historically low to moderate level of seismicity. However, strong ground shaking could occur within the project site during seismic events and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the Nunez Fault or the Ortigalita Fault, or other associated faults , could affect the project site through seismic ground shaking. Strong seismic ground shaking could potentially cause structural damage to the proposed project. However, due to the distance to the known faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) would ensure that the geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less -than- significant impact. No mitigation is required.

41 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine- grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. Based on the predicted seismic accelerations, and soil and groundwater conditions typically encountered in the region, seismic settlement, lateral spread, and general liquefaction potential is low in the Fresno Planning Area. Furthermore, compliance with the Fresno Municipal Code and the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

iv. Landslides?

A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. The City of Fresno Planning Area is located within an area that consists of mostly fl at topography within the Central Valley.

Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the Planning Area. However, there is the potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, such as the San Joaquin River bluf f, creeks, drainage basins and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the Planning Area. The project site is located on a relatively flat area and is not located next to any hills or within 300 feet of the San Joaquin River bluff, unlined basins, or canals. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant . No mitigation is required.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The total project site is 1.23 acres, which would be disturbed/developed during proposed grading and construction activities. Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. However, this impact would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through compliance with water quality control measures, which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study. Impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

42 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

As described in discussion a) in this section, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact related to the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation is required.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. The project site contains San Joaquin loam, a soil with relatively low clay content and shrink-swell potential. 11 Furthermore, compliance with
the California Building Code requirements would ensure that geotechni cal design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less-than- significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting the proposed project is considered low. Impacts to expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the PCWD.

Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No mitigation is required.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

11 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey. sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed May 2022).

43 No paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to exist within or near the project site, and the proposed project is not expected to alter or destroy a paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. Furthermore, the proposed project would not require excavation to depths that have not already been distur bed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected t o directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:

• Carbon dioxide (CO
2)
• Methane (CH4)

44 • Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons
• Perfluorocarbons
• Sulfur Hexafluoride

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric conc entrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO
2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO
2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse green-house gas emission impact if the project would:

• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance- based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

Therefore, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets the standards, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts.

45 The City of Fresno’s GHG Reduction Plan was adopted in December 2014 to reduce local community GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, consistent with the State objectives set forth in AB 32. The City’s 2014 GHG Reduction Plan meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reducti on Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The City of Fresno updated its 2014 GHG Reduction Plan in the year 2021 to conform with exist ing applicable State climate change policies and regulations to reduce local community GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030, consistent with the State objectives set by SB 32. The GHG Plan Update outlines strategies that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. The GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update.

The GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. The City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update has not yet been adopted; however, for purposes of this analysis, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update.

Projects that meet the requirements of the Consistency 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 emissions (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). Projec ts that do not meet the requirements in the Consistency 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 the Consistency Checklist to the extent feasible.

In addition, as the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and rezone, the GHG Reduction Plan requires the estimated GHG emissions under both the proposed project and the maximum buildout of the existing designation. Based on the existing Residential Single -Family, Medium Density (RS -5) designation, the maximum buildout of the existing designation would be 11 single -family residential units. Table 4 provides a comparison of the estimated CO
2e per year from the proposed project’s
operational activities under the maximum buildout of the existing single-family homes and the proposed project.

46 Table 4: Comparison of Project and Existing Designation GHG Emissions Emissions Source GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e per Year) Existing Designation Proposed Project
Area Source Emissions 10.5 <0.1
Energy Source Emissions 22.4 18.5
Mobile Source Emissions 110.4 292.9
Waste Source Emissions 5.6 63.6
Water Source Emissions 1.5 3.0
Total Operational Emissions 150.4 377.9
Source: LSA (May 2022).

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
GHG = greenhouse gas

As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s estimated maximum buildout of the existing single-family homes annual GHG emissions is approximately 150.4 metric tons of CO 2e
and the proposed project’s estimated annual GHG emissions are approximately 377.9 metric tons of CO2e. GHG emissions associated with proposed project would be greater than the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the existing designation; however, the proposed project would result in development on an infill site and would provide medical, physical, psychological services in an underserved area of Pinedale resulting in shorter trip lengths and increased access to essential services. In addition, by locating the proposed Valley Health Team facility within the community of Pinedale, it is assumed that patients and visitors would walk to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be located within 1,000 feet of the City of Fresno bus rapid transit system (BRT). Furthermore, it is assumed that telemedicine appointments would account for approximately 25 percent of all appointments. Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

Table 5 shows the estimated emissions considering 10 percent bus trips, 25 percent telemedicine appointments, and assuming a two- mile trip length as the community of Pinedale is approximately two square miles. As shown in Table 5, with consideration of reduced vehicle trips and VMT, the proposed project’s estimated annual GHG emissions are approximately 140.3 metric tons of CO
2e, which is less than the proposed project’s
estimated maximum buildout of the existing single-family homes annual GHG emissions is approximately 150.4 metric tons of CO2e.

Table 5: Project GHG Emissions - Reduced Vehicle Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled
Emissions Source GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e per Year) Area Source Emissions <0.1
Energy Source Emissions 18.5
Mobile Source Emissions 55.2
Waste Source Emissions 63.6
Water Source Emissions 3.0
Total Operational Emissions 140.3
Source: LSA (August 2022).

CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
GHG = greenhouse gas

47 In addition, as s tated above, the GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency Checklist to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. The project’s Consistency Checklist is included in Appendix C. As shown in the Consistency Checklist, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from the GHG Reduction Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which includes suggested best performance standards (BPS) for proposed development projects.

However, the SJVAPCD’s CCAP was adopted in 2009 and was prepared based on the State’s 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by State policies (i.e., the 2019 California Green Building Code) and the 2030 GHG targets, established in SB 32. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update. In addition, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of AB 32 and the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The following discussion evaluates the proposed project according to the goals of AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Executive Order (EO) B 30 15, SB 32, and AB 197.

AB 32 is aimed at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The AB 32 Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which includes direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market -based mechanisms such as a cap - and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps the State on the path toward achieving the 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

As identified above, the AB 32 Scoping Plan contains GHG reduction measures that work towards reducing GHG emissions, consistent with the targets set by AB 32, EO B -30-15

48 and codified by SB 32 and AB 197. The measures applicable to the proposed project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as discussed below.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologi es and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the CEC, regarding energy conservation and green building standards .

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewat er and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to include drought tolerant landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and m otor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

As such, the proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GH G emissions.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to GHG emissions, and no mitigation is required.

49 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X

b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X

d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in
a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
X

f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X

50 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Applicable laws and regulations ensure that transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials do not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, a proposed project’s routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is potentially significant if unusual circumstances are present, such as an unusually high frequency of use, use of an unusually large amount of hazardous substances, or use of particularly hazardous materials. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the USEPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). No uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous mater ials are anticipated to occur within the project site. Project operation would involve the use of small quantities of commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, cleaning supplies) that could be potentially hazardous if handled improperly or ingested. However, these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable standards and regulations. The proposed commercial uses would not generate significant amounts of any hazardous materials. The proposed project would comply with all applicable laws and regulations related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and no unusual circumstances are present. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than- significant impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

See discussion a) above. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset or

51 accident condition related to the release of hazardous materials. This impact would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The closest existing school is Pinedale Elementary School, located approximately 60 feet north of the project site. As previously stated, no unusual circumstances are present. The proposed project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve activities that would result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No mitigation is required.

According to the DTSC EnviroStor database,
12 the project site is not located on a federal
superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 13 As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated, and there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The nearest airports include the Sierra Sky Park Airport, located approximately 4.1 miles west of the project site, the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately

12 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2007. EnviroStor. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno (accessed November May 2022). 13 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section -65962-5a/ (accessed May 2022).

52 the project site, and the Valley Children’s Hospital located approximately 3.1 miles northwest of the project site.14 Although the project site is within 2 miles of the Saint Agnes Medical Center heliport, operations at this facility and other local airports are not expected to pose a safety hazard to peopl e working or visiting the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation is required.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plan, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.

14 California Department of Transportation (Caltr ans), 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available online at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/# (accessed June 2022).
15 Cal Fire, 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Kune. Available online at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed November 24, 2021).

53 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X

b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X

c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
X

ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X

iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X

54 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During project construction, there would be an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies.

Because the project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, it is required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010- 0014-DWG and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). The project is also subject to Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, Section 6- 714, Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Storm Water Pollutants of the City’s Municipal Code.

The Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement Construction Best Management Prac tices (BMPs). Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion and sediment control, designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Section 6-714 of the City’s Municipal Code also requires the implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent technologically and economically feasible to prevent and reduce pollutants from entering stormwater during construction.

Therefore, adherence to the required SWPPP and the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of construction BMPs, would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants into nearby water bodies during construction and impacts associated with the

55 violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

During construction, it is likely that dewatering would be required. If groundwater is encountered during construction, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Requirements Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Order R5- 2022-0006, NPDES No. CAG995002). Wit h adherence to the Waste Discharge Requirements pertaining to Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, project construction would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation. Operation of the proposed project could result in surface water pollution associated with chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation into nearby water bodies.

The City of Fresno operates under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (Order No. R5-2016-0040-014, NPDES No. CAS0085324).

Consistent with the City of Fresno’s MS4 Permit, the project would implement storm water quality controls recommended in the Fresno- Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Construction and Post-Construction Guidelines. If applicable, the project would also be subject to the Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Order 2014- 0057-DWQ as amended in 2015 and 2018) (Industrial General Permit) and would be required to develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non- stormwater discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, sample storm water runoff and test if for pollutant indicators, and submit an annual report to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Adherence to the City of Fresno’s MS4 Permit, including implementation of the Stormwater Man agement Post -Construction Guidelines, as specified in the Industrial General Permit, would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants during project operations and impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. The majority of the project site would be impervious surface; and therefore, it is not expected that stormwater would infiltrate during project operations. Because stormwater would be collected and diverted to the storm drain system, there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. Therefore, project operations would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.

56 Conclusion. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by PCWD. The PCWD service area encompasses nearly 1,270 acres or 2 square miles, in both the City of Fresno and unincorporated Fresno County. PCWD provides water to 2,400 residential and 550 commercial accounts. PCWD delivers water through wells dispersed across the district.

Presently, demands only require the district to run three wells of the five wells; the other two are on standby. PCWD does have other wells; however, these wells are currently offline because of trichloroethylene contamination. As undeveloped lands within the district urbanize one of the standby wells will serve as the water source for the added demand.
16 Temporary dewatering from excavations could be necessary during construction.

Construction-related dewatering would be temporary and limited to the area of excavations on the project site and would not substantially contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies.

Operation of the project would not require groundwater extraction. Following project implementation, there would be a minor increase in impervious surface area. An increase in impervious surface area decreases infiltration, which can decrease the amount of water that is able to recharge the aquifer/groundwater. However, the small increase in impervious area would not substantially decrease any infiltration that currently may occur on the site. Therefore, the project would not impede the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s ability to manage groundwater. Thus, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable management of the Kings Subbasin. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

During construction, excavated soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. Additionally,

16 Pinedale County Water District , n.d. About Us. Available online: https://pcwdonline.com/ index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=16 (accessed August 2022).

57 during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate.

As discussed previously, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance with the requir ements in the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, and with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

The project would increase the amount of impervious surface, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, and which can more effectively transport sediments to receiving waters. At project completion, much of the project site would be impervious surface area and not prone to on-site erosion or siltation because no exposed soil would be present in these areas. The remaining portion of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to establish and maintain existing drainage patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in an impact related to substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce or eliminate the proposed project’s potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

During construction, soil would be disturbed and compacted, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on site. With adherence to the Construction General Permit, construction impacts related to altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site would be less than significant.

While the project would permanently increase the impervious surface area, the project would be required to direct drainage towards Fir Avenue, Sugar Pine Avenue and/or Beechwood Avenue. In addition, prior to final development approval, the project applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and Drainage Report to the FMFCD for review and approval. According to the City’s preliminary review, permanent drainage service is available for the project area, provided that the project applicant can verify to the satisfac tion of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to the Master Plan inlet. The FMFCD existing Master Plan drainage

58 system is designed to serve medium density residential uses and the existing Master Plan storm drainage facilities do not have capacity to serve the proposed commercial land use. As such, the project applicant would be required to mitigate the impacts of the increased runoff from the proposed commercial land use to a rate that would be expected if developed to medium density residential . As required by HYDRO-1, the project applicant would mitigate the increased runoff by either making improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adver se impacts on the existing system. Should the project applicant choose to construct a permanent peak -reducing facility, such a system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten- year storm produced by a commercial development to a two-year discharge, which would be produced by the property if developed medium density residential. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs . With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site and impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Construction. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located in the parking lot and the perimeter of the project site. However, compliance with pre- existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of a SWPPP, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project construction to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, construction would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operations. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially increase runoff from the site. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including the MS4, as specified in the Industrial General Permit, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, project operations would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

59 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

The proposed project is not located within the 100- year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 17 Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect potential flood flows, and the proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is required.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

The project site is not located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Refer to discussion a) in Section IX, Hazards and Haz ardous Materials regarding the use of hazardous materials within the project site. As a result, a less -than-significant impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. No mitigation is required.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by PCWD, which provides water through wells dispersed across the district. Presently, demands only require the district to run three wells of the five wells; the other two are on standby. PCWD does have other wells; however, these wells are currently offline because of trichloroethylene contamination. As undeveloped lands within the district urbanize one of the standby wells will serve as the water source for the added demand.
18 In addition, as noted above, the
proposed project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements.

As a result, the proposed project would not include any other waste discharges that could conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: The project applicant shall mitigate the increased runoff associated with the proposed project by either making improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system.

Should the project applicant choose to construct a permanent peak-reducing facility, such a system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten-year storm produced by a commercial development to a two-year discharge, which would be produced by the property if developed medium density residential.

17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed May 2022).
18 Pinedale County Water District, n.d. Op. cit.

60 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established
community?
X

b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Physically divide an established community?

The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an int erstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The proposed project would consist of the development of an approximately 11,664- square-foot, 28-foot-tall single-story medical clinic , and associated circulation, parking, and infrastructure improvements . Adjacent parcels primarily consist of single- family, residential, commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. The proposed project would not construct features that would divide an established community or remove means of access that would impair mobility in a community. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to physical ly dividing an established community , and no mitigation is required.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The project site is designated Medium Density Residential in the City of Fresno General Plan. This land use designation covers developments of 5 to 12 units per acre and is

61 intended for areas with predominantly single-family residential development, but can also accommodate a mix of housing types, including small -lot starter homes, zero- lot line developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Much of the City’s established neighborhoods fall within this designation.

The project site is zoned Residential Single- Family, Medium Density (RS -5), which is intended to provide for a variety of single- family residences built to urban or suburban standards to suit a spectrum of individual lifestyles and needs, and to ensure availability throughout the city of the range of housing types necessary for all segments of the community, consistent with densities established in the General Plan.

The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment and rezone to G eneral Commercial (CG).

General Plan

The City’s General Plan is the fundamental policy document of the City of Fresno.

Within the General Plan, the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element is the principal document guiding land use and development within the City. As identified above, without a General Plan amendment, the proposed project is inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan as they pertain to the existing Office designation. The proposed project would amend the General Plan to General Commercial.

The General Commercial district is intended for a range of retail and service uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of higher volumes of vehicle traffic and potential adverse impacts on other uses. Development such as strip malls fall into this designation. Examples of allowable uses include building materials, storage facilities with active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 2.0.

The proposed project would be consistent with applicable Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element policies:

• Implementing Policy L U-2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment.

Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and re- developable land within the City Limits where urban services are available by considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs. • Implementing Policy LU -5-g: Scale and Character of New Development.

Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes.

As described above, the project site is located in a primarily developed area of Fresno.

The project site is primarily flat and developed with two existing on- site structures,

62 including a 923- square-foot single- family dwelling unit and a 464- square-foot unattached garage. As identified above, nearby parcels consist mostly of single-family residential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. The proposed project would include a new si ngle-story medical clinic and although the proposed project would change the visual characteristics of the project site by developing the site, the design of the project would be consistent with the visual character within the project area. In addition, the proposed project would result in a more i ntensive land use on an infill site and would provide medical, physical, psychological services in an underserved area of Pinedale. In addition, by locating the proposed Valley Health Team facility within the community of Pinedale, it is would allow for patients and visitors to walk to the proposed project by utilizing an integrated pedestrian circulation system. Additionally, vehicle routes would be easily accessible to the site from the surrounding areas . Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Implementing Policy LU-2-a and Implementing Policy LU-5-g.

Zoning Code

The current zoning for the project site is Residential Single -Family, Medium Density (RS-5); however, the proposed project would require a rezone to General Commercial (CG). This zoning district is intended to accommodate a range of retail and service uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of higher volumes of vehicle traffic and potential impacts on other uses. Examples of allowable uses include:
building materials, storage facilities with active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers.

The focus of district development standards is to ensure structures fit into the surrounding development pattern and architectural or traffic conflicts are minimized.

As discussed above, the proposed project would include a new single -story medical clinic on an infill site and would provide medical, physical, psychological services in an underserved area of Pinedale. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the General Commercial (CG) zoning district.

Summary

Although the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and Rez one Change, the project applicant would be required to comply with all of the City’s associated requirements and fees. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Commercial (CG) designation. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with proposed General Plan and zoning designations and would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning, and no mitigation is required.

63 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X

b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

The project site is located within an urban area on a previously developed site. There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site. The principal area for mineral resources in the City of Fresno Planning Area is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) 1, MRZ-2, and MRZ-

3. The project site is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River Corridor and does not contain mineral resources. Furthermore, no mineral extraction operations occur in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources, would result in no impact. No mitigation is required.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

64 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
X

b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X

c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater

65 weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A - weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound.

Equivalent continuous sound level (L
eq) is the total sound energy of time- varying noise
over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the L
eq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (L dn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24- hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly L eq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). L dn
is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjus tment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and L dn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

A project would hav e a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Fresno.

The City of Fresno addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan and in Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code. Listed below are objectives and policies related to noise that are presented in the Noise Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Noise Element sets noise standards for transportation and stationary noise sources as shown in Table 6 and Table 7, below.

66 Table 6: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Land Use1
Outdoor Activity
Areas2 Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB2
Residential 65 45 -
Transient Lodging 65 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls - - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 - 45
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dB = decibel(s)
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

Table 7: Stationary Noise Sources

Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
1 The Planning and Development Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB. dB = decibel(s)
dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
L
dn = day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum A-weighted sound level

• Policy NS -1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise- sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA L dn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise- sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA L dn 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-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range.

Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be

67 generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS -1-a, and study alternative less noise- sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 6 as conditions of permit approval.

• Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Façades with substantial weight and insulation;
o Installation of sound- rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas;
o Installation of sound- rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
o Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; o Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.
• NS-1-i Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial , or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 6 and 7 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 6 and 7 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

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

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As

68 a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. • Policy NS -1-j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City ’s environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.

Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code es tablishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. Section 10-109 states that construction noise is exempted from City noise regulations provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. Adjacent parcels primarily consist of single- family re sidential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. The closest sensitive receptors include single-family residences located directly adjacent to the western border of the project site, Pinedale Elementary school located approximately 60 feet north of the project site across West Fir Avenue, and single-family residences located approximately 60 feet south of the project site across West Beechwood Avenue.

The following section describes how the short -term construction and long- term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short - term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities.

Table 8 lists typical construction equipment noise levels (L max) recommended for noise
impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed.

Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase

69 noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 8, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during grading and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise lev els vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 8: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description
Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level

Table 8 lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 88 dBA L max at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the project site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders.

Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.

70 Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Construction details (e.g., construction fleet activities) are not yet known; therefore, this analysis assumes that scrapers, bulldozers, and water trucks/pickup trucks would be operating simultaneously during construction of the proposed project. As discussed above, noise levels associated wit h this equipment operating simultaneously would be approximately 88 dBA L
max at 50 feet.

As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors include single- family residences located directly adjacent to the western border of the project site, Pinedale Element ary school located approximately 60 feet north of the project site across West Fir Avenue, and single- family residences located approximately 60 feet south of the project site across West Beechwood Avenue. Based on building setbacks, the closest sensitive receptor is the adjacent single-family residential building, which is approximately 20 feet from project construction activities. Based on a reduction in noise of 6 dBA per doublin g of distance, there would be in increase of approximately 8 dBA from the active construction area to the nearest residence. In addition, the proposed project would construct a c oncrete masonry unit (CMU) wall, which would reduce noise levels by approximat ely 10 dBA.

Therefore, the closest off-site sensitive receptor may be subject to short-term construction noise reaching 86 dBA L
max (88 dBA L max + 8 dBA – 10 dBA) when construction is occurring.

However, construction equipment would operate at various locations within the 1.23-acre project site and would only generate maximum noise levels when operations occur closest to the receptor. T o ensure that the project’s potential construction- related noise impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI -1 requires the project to 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. These measures would ensure that the project’s potential construction-related noise impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

Long-Term ( Operational) Noise Impacts. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of

71 cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementati on of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level.

As discussed below in Section XVII, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 406 daily trips, which would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity and would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels at receptors in the project vicinity.

In addition, with implementation of the proposed project, there would be an increase in activity at the project site. The project site itself is located in a primarily developed area surrounded by single-family residential and commercial uses and Pinedale Elementary School. Noise from the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions and would generally include noise from vehicles, air conditioner units, and other similar equipment.

It is not expected that the proposed project would result in a perceptible increase in noise to surrounding land uses. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Operation of the proposed project would result in similar noise levels as existing conditions and, therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the f oundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less.

This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy -duty earthmoving equipment), and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadw ays are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.

72 The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on- road vehicles make it unusual for on- road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on- road vehicles is necessary. Therefore, once constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration. Construction of the proposed project c ould result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in peak parti cle velocity ( PPV) (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in root -mean-square (RMS) are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non- engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).

Table 9 shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source.

As shown in Table 9, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residents and workers but would not cause any damage to the buildings.

Table 9: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = micro-inches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels

73 Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/ office buildings in the project vicinity). Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off -site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.

L
vdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5

As shown in Table 9 , f or typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 87 VdB at 25 feet. The closest building to the project site includes the single- family residence immediately west of the project site boundary. Based on building setbac ks, this receptor is approximately 20 feet from project construction activities . At 20 feet, this single-family residence would experience vibration levels of up to 90 VdB (0.124 PPV [in/sec]), which would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for non-engineered timber and masonry building damage when bulldozers and loaded trucks operate at or near the project construction boundary. Although construction vibration levels at surrounding uses would have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed and impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The nearest airports include the Sierra Sky Park Airport, located approximately 4.1 miles west of the project site, the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately

5.2 miles southeast of the project site, and the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 7.4 miles southwest of the project site. In addition, the nearest medical center helipads include the Saint Agnes Medical Center, located 1.5 miles southeast of the project site, and the Valley Children’s Hospital H located approximately 3.1 miles northwest of the project site. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible on the project site, the site does not lie within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of any of these airports or helipads. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

74 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure NOI -1: The project contractor shall implement the foll owing measures during construction of the project:
• Construction of the masonry wall on the western property line shall be constructed during the first phase of the construction project.
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly oper ating 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 to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday.
• 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X

75 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The proposed project would consist of the development of an approximately 11,664- square-foot, 28-foot-tall single-story medical clinic , and associated circulation, parking, and infrastructure improvements in the approximately 1.23-acre project site. The project site is designated Medium Density Residential in the City of Fresno General Plan and is located within the Residential Single-Family Zoning District (RS-5) of the City of Fresno.

The project site would require a change in zoning and land use designation to introduce a commercial use into the project site. The proposed project would not include a residential component that would result in population growth. Furthermore, the proposed project would not require the extension of existing roads or other infrastructure that could lead to unplanned population growth. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project would require the demolition of one existing single- family dwelling unit; however, it is assumed that there would be sufficient replacement residences that are equal to or better than the displacement property available for rent or purchase.

Therefore, there would be a less -than-significant impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning, and no mitigation is required.

76 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
i
n order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?

The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide f ire protection services to the proposed project. There are 23 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station, Fire Stat ion 13, located approximately 2 miles from the project site.

Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for f ire protection service in the City. The project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the project site would be developed consistent with its land use and zoning designations. The

77 project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services as a result of additional employees to the project site. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit plans to the FFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the project would conform to applicable building codes.

The FFD would continue providing serv ices to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. The incremental increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact on fire protection. No mitigation is required.

ii. Police protection?

The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the project site. The FPD headquarters are located at 2323 Mariposa Street, approximately 8.1 miles from the project site. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The project is consistent with the site’s General Plan des ignation and does not represent unplanned growth. The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services. The FPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts to police protection would represent a less -than-significant impact. No mitigation is required.

iii. Schools?

The proposed project would not generate student demand or otherwise impact school services given that there is no housing or a residential component. As such, there would be no impact related to schools, and no mitigation is required.

iv. Parks?

Demand for parks generated by the project is within planned services levels of the City of Fresno Parks and Community Services Department and the applicant would be required to pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained or receive credits for construction as may be memorialized within a subdivision or development agreement. Maintenance would be afforded through

78 annexation into a Community Facilities District (CFD). Therefore, impacts to parks would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

v. Other public facilities?

Development of the proposed project is not expected increase demand for other public s ervices, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. Further, the proposed project would provide medical, physical, psychological services in an underserved area of Pinedale. In addition, by locating the proposed Valley Healt h Team facility within the community of Pinedale. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service standards, as these facilities are not currently overused and have capacity to serve new demand. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to public services, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X

b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

79 DISCUSSION

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

The proposed project would consist of the development of a medical clinic and would not generate population growth that would result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No mitigation is required.

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The proposed project would consist of the development of a medical clinic and does not include or require the construction or expansion of existing public recreational facilities; therefore, development of the proposed project and associated recreational opportunities for use by users of the project site would not result in additional environmental effects beyond those described in this document. As a result, no impact would occur to recreational facilities and the proposed project would not require the construc tion or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X

80 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X

c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X

d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X

DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

A Trip Generation Analysis (TGA)
19 was prepared for the proposed project, which is
included in Appendix D. The TGA evaluates the potential difference in traffic generation of the proposed project compared to the General Plan designation. As identified in the TGA, trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation M anual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 10 presents the trip generation for the proposed p roject. As shown in Table 10, the proposed p roject is estimated to generate a maximum of 406 daily trips, 32 AM peak hour trips and 40 PM peak hour trips.

Table 10: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Medical-Dental Office
Building

11.664
ksf
406 25 7 32 11 29 40
Source: JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (April 2022).

Note: Rates per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition; Land Use Code (720) Medical-Dental Office Building. ksf = thousand square feet

The General Plan proposes that the project site be developed with Single-family detached housing units under the Medium Density Residential land use (5.0 to 12.0 dwelling units per acre). For purposes of this comparison, it is assumed that the p roject site be

19 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., 2022. Trip Generation Analysis for the Medical Clinic located in the City of Fresno. April 8.

81 developed according to the median dens ity range allowable for Medium Density Residential of 8.5 ((5 + 12) ÷ 2 = 8.5) dwelling units per acre. Table 11 presents the trip generation of that which could otherwise be developed consistent with the General Plan with trip generation rates for 11 single-family detached housing units. Consistent with the General Plan, the project site would be anticipated to generate a maximum of 104 daily trips, 8 AM peak hour trips and 11 PM peak hour trips.

Table 11: General Plan Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing
11 du 104 2 6 8 7 4 11
Source: JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (April 2022).

Note: Rates per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition; Land Use Code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing. du = dwelling units

Compared to that which could be developed consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of 302 daily trips, 24 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour tri ps. The trip generation comparison between the proposed project and the General Plan is shown in Table 12.

Table 12: General Plan Trip Generation
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project 406 25 7 32 11 29 40
General Plan 104 2 6 8 7 4 11
Difference in Trip Generation 302 23 1 24 4 25 29
Source: JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (April 2022).

Note: Rates per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition; Land Use Code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing.

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 off -site 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 t o assist with areas being incentivized for development. In the

82 City of Fresno, all developments within TIZ-I maintain a Level of Service (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 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 proposed project is located within TIZ- III and its anticipated trip generation would not exceed 40 peak hour trips, a TIS would not be required. Additionally, the project site is located in an area where all major streets have been developed to meet or exceed the planned number of lanes. Also, all major street-to-major street intersections near the vicinity of the p roject site are currently signalized and further improvements to these intersections are not anticipated by City of Fresno or Caltrans agencies.

Due to the limited addition of project-related traffic, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant number of trips that would result in the deficiency of existing intersections within the project vicinity. As such, the addition of project t raffic is not anticipated to exceed the City’s level of significance threshold of LOS (LOS E or better).

In addition, the project -related traffic would not result in a deficiency to existing transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities . Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system or congestion management program. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

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

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to

83 estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.

The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”

On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The Ci ty of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to s creen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment or a Rezone, none of the screening criteria may apply, and that the City must evaluate such projects on a case-by- case basis.

Although the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone, the proposed project would result in a more intensive land use on an infill site and would provide medical, physical, psychological services in an underserved area of Pinedale.

The proposed location was selected due to its proximity to Pinedale Elementary School

and Pinedale Community Center, which are located north of the project site across West Fir Avenue. As such, by locating the proposed Valley Health Team facility within the community of Pinedale, the proposed project would allow patients and visitors the ability to walk to the project site. Further, the proposed project is located within 1,000 feet of the City of Fresno BRT, which is expected to reduce vehicle trips and VMT. In addition, it is assumed that telemedicine appointments would account for approximately 25 percent of all appointments . Therefore, the proposed project would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation, would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and would increase the use of alternate modes of transportation.

Based on all these project features , the proposed project would result in a less -than- significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines S ection 15064.3(b). No mitigation is required.

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

84 The proposed project would not include any sharp curves or other roadway design elements that would create dangerous conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, and there would be no impact.

No mitigation is required.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site via driveways on Sugar Pine Avenue and Beechwood Avenue. Further, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the FFD to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. In addition, as discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project implementation would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation or the FFD access to and from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less -than-significant impacts related to inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to transportation, and no mitigation is required.

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

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X

85 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi -
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC s ection 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

DISCUSSION

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native Ameri can tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register.

Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

86 Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the proposed project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These tribes included: Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me- Wuk Indians ; Dunlap Band of Mono Indians ; Nashville Enterprise Miwok- Maidu-Nishinam Tribe; North Fork Mono Tribe; North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians ; Salinan Tribe of Monterey , San Luis Obispo Counties; Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians; Xolon-Salinan Tribe; Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians ; Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government; Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe; North Valley Yokuts Tribe; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians ; Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band; Table Mountain Rancheria; Traditional Choinumni Tribe; and the Tule River Indian Tribe.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies pr ovide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public agency. The purpose of AB 52 is to provide the opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impa cts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s), as defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2107(a). Under AB 52, public agencies shall reach out to California Native American Tribes who have requested to be notified of projects in areas within or whic h may have been affiliated with their tribal geographic range.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo-wah Tribe were invited to consult under AB 52. Under invitations to consult under SB 18 and AB 52, no tribes requested consultation.

Based on the Cultural Resources Assessment
20 prepared by Peak &
Associates, Inc., there are no known Native American resources in the project site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). Additionally, no specific tribal cultural resources were identified in the project site as a result of Native American consultation conducted for the project per Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52.

As such, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural lands cape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources , or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). No mitigation is required.

20 Peak & Associates, Inc., 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Valley Health Team Project Area, Pinedale, County of Fresno, California. March 3.

87 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Under invitations to consult under SB 18 and AB 52, no tribes requested consultation. The City, as lead agency, has not identified any potential tribal cultural resources at the project site. As such, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage,
electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effect?
X

b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X

88 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X

d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X

e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

As identified in the Project Description, utilities required to serve the proposed project would include water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Water. Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the PCWD. The PCWD service area encompasses nearly 1,270 acres or 2 square miles, in both the City of Fresno and unincorporated Fresno County. PCWD provides water to 2,400 residential and 550 commercial accounts. PCWD delivers water through wells dispersed across the district. Presently, demands only require the district to run three wells of the five wells; the other two are on standby. PCWD does have other wells; however, these wells are currently offline because of trichloroethylene contamination. As undeveloped lands within

89 the district urbanize one of the standby wells will serve as the water source for the added demand.21

Short-term demand for water may occur during excavation, grading, and construction activities on site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust mitigation purposes. Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site would be used. Overall, short -term construction activities would require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water conveyance, treatment, or collection facil ities with respect to construction activities.

Based on the nature of the proposed project, the project-generated increase in water demand would be minimal and would fall within the PCWD’s existing capacity and available supply. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the PCWD would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.

Wastewater. Wastewater services would also be provided by PCWD. No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of construction activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable toilet facilities, which transport waste off site for treatment and disposal.

In addition, wastewater generation associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements or exceed the available capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. The project would be adequately served by the capacity and the existing wastewater conveyance system. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the PCWD would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.

Stormwater and Drainage Facilities. While the project would permanently increase the impervious surface area, the project would be required to direct drainage towards Fir Avenue, Sugar Pine Avenue and/or Beechwood Avenue. In addition, prior to final development approval, the project applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and Drainage Report to the FMFCD for review and approval. According to the City’s preliminary review, permanent drainage service is available for the project area, provided that the project applicant can verify to the satisfaction of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to the Master Plan inlet. The FMFCD existing Master Plan drainage system is designed to serve medium density residential uses and the existing Master Plan storm drainage facilities do not have capacity to serve the proposed commercial land use. As such, the project applicant would be required to mitigate the impacts of the increased runoff from

21 Pinedale County Water District , n.d. About Us. Available online: https://pcwdonline. com/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=16 (accessed August 2022).

90 the proposed commercial land use to a rate that would be expected if developed to medium density residential . As required by HYDRO -1, the project applicant would mitigate the increased runoff by either mak ing improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system. Should the project applicant choose to construct a permanent peak -reducing facility, such a system would be required to reduce runoff from a ten- year storm produced by a commercial development to a two- year discharge, which would be produced by the property if developed medium density residential . Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs . With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would result in less -than-significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities. No additional mitigation is required.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Facilities. Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would require connecti ons to the project site.

However, because the project site is located within an urbanized area with existing facilities in close proximity, connection to these facilities would not cause significant environmental effects. In addition, as discussed in Section VI , Energy, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Once operational, electricity and natural gas usage would be a minimal fraction of Fresno County’s total electricity and natural gas demand. As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction or new or expanded utilities.

Summary. With implementation of Mitigat ion Measure HYDRO-1, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications which could cause significant environmental effects . Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

As discussed above, sufficient water supply would be available to serve the project site.

As a result, the project would result in a less -than-significant impact related to water supply and there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Refer to discussion a) above. Wastewater generation associated with the proposed project is not antic ipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements or exceed the

91 available capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. The project would be adequately served by the capacity and the existing wastewater conveyance system . In addition, the proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. As such, the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Garbage disposed in the City of Fresno is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off ‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.

The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐ AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.
22 Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill (City o f Clovis Landfill 10-AA-0004) with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.
23 Based on CalEEMod, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately

23.1 pounds of solid waste per day or about 126.4 tons of solid waste per year. Given the capacity at the landfills, t he additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste. Also refer to discussion d) in this section.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact related to

22 CalRecycle. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352 (accessed April 1, 2022).
23 CalRecycle. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347 (accessed April 1, 2022).

92 federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X

c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X

d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
X

93 DISCUSSION

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Fresno County, the project site is not located within a Very or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
24 The proposed project would consist in the development of a medical clinic on an infill site within the City. As a result, project implementation would not physically interfere with evacuation plans or FFD access to and from the project site. In addition, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the FFD to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. Moreover, since the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA), potential impacts associated with emergency access described above would not pertain to wildfire and would more likely be associated with an urban fire or other emergency situations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required.

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

As stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope and prevailing winds, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Utility and infrastructure improvements included as part of the project are described in Section XIX, Utilities . These improvements would include the installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.

24 Cal Fire. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed August 2022).

94 The project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA.

Utility installations would not exacerbate fire risk due to the location of the project site in an urban area outside of a designated fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required.

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking but can also occur as a result of erosion and downslope runoff caused by rain following a fire. As previously discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, the City of Fresno Planning Area is located within an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the Planni ng Area. In addition, the project site is generally level and would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Further, as stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a SRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. T here would be no impact and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to wildfire, and no mitigation is required.

95 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X

b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X

c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or

96 restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources and Section V, Cultural Resources, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 and CUL- 1 and CUL-2, development of the proposed project would not: (1) degrade the quality of the environment; (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self -sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable due to the site- specific nature of the potential impacts. The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. These impacts would primarily be related to construction- period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics.

Implementation of recommended AIR- 1, BIO-1 and BIO-2, CUL-1 and CUL-2, HYDRO- 1, and NOI-1 would ensure that the impac ts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

For the topics of Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife, the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics.

As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

97 c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The proposed project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could directly or indirectly impact human beings has been evaluated in this Initial Study. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
I. AESTHETICS
There are no significant impacts to aesthetics.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
There are no significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

III. AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with
SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10
Prohibitions), the following controls are required to
be included as specifications for the proposed
project and implemented at the construction site:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which
are not being actively utilized for construction
purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust
emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/
suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable
cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on -site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved
access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust
emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/
suppressant.
• All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation,
land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition
activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive
dust emissions utilizing application of water or by
presoaking.
• When materials are transported off -site, all
During Project
Construction
Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to
limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches
of freeboard space from the top of the container
shall be maintained.
• All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove
the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent
public streets at the end of each workday. (The
use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited
except where preceded or accompanied by
sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust
emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly
forbidden.)
• Following the addition of materials to, or the
removal of materials from, the surface of out-door
storage piles, said piles shall be effectively
stabilized of fug itive dust emission utilizing
sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/
suppressant.

5 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If project construction
activities occur during nesting season (between
February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall
conduct pre-construction surveys for active bird
nests at the project site within 14 days of the onset
of these activities.

During Project
Construction if
During the
Nesting Season
(February 1 to
August 31)
Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Should any active nests
be discovered in or near proposed construction
zones, the biologist shall identify a suitable
construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer
shall be identified with flagging or fencing (or
otherwise clearly demarcated) and shall be
maintained until the biologist has determined that
the nest is no longer active.

During Project
Construction
Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event the event
that archaeological resources are identified during
project activities, work should be halted immediately
within 50 feet of the find until a qualified professional archaeologist is contacted to assess the nature and
significance of the find and determine if any
additional study or treatment of the find is warranted.

The archaeologist should develop proper mitigation
measures required for the discovery per California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section
15064.5(f). Additional studies could include, but
would not be limited to, collection and
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities

Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

6 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
documentation of artifacts, documentation of the
cultural resources on State of California Department
of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms, or
subsurface testing. If determined appropriate by the
qualified archaeologist, archaeological monitoring
should commence and continue until grading and
excavation are complete or until the monitoring
archaeologist determines, based on field
observations and in consultation with the qualified
archaeologist, that there is little likelihood of
encountering additional archaeological cultural
resources. Archaeological monitoring may be
reduced from full-time to part-time or spot-checking
if determined appropriate by the qualified
archaeologist based on monitoring results. Upon
completion of any monitoring activities, the
archaeologist should prepare a report to document
the methods and results of monitoring activities. The
final version of this report should be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

7 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24
hours notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact
the most likely descendent of the deceased Native
American, who shall then serve as the consultant on
how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native
American remains, the landowner shall ensure that
the immediate vicinity, according to generally
accepted cultural or archaeological standards or
practices, where the Native American human
remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by
further development activity until the landowner has
discussed and conferred with the most likely
descendants regarding their recommendations, if
applicable, taking into account the possibility of
multiple human remains. The landowner shall
discuss and confer with the descendants all
reasonable options regarding the descendants'
preferences for treatment.

VI. ENERGY
There are no significant impacts to energy.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There are no significant impacts to geology and soils.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
There are no significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

8 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
There are no significant impacts to hazards and hazardous material.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: The project
applicant shall mitigate the increased runoff
associated with the proposed project by either
making improvements to the existing pipeline
system to provide additional capacity or use some
type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to
eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system.

Should the project applicant choose to construct a
permanent peak-reducing facility, such a system
would be required to reduce runoff from a ten-year
storm produced by a commercial development to a
two-year discharge, which would be produced by the
property if developed medium density residential.

Prior to
issuance of
building permits
Project
Applicant
Planning &
Development
Department

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are no significant impacts to land use and planning.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to mineral resources.

XIII. NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project contractor
shall implement the following measures during
construction of the project:
• Construction of the masonry wall on the western
property line shall be constructed during the first
phase of the construction project.

During Project
Construction
Construction
Contractor
Planning &
Development
Department

9 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
• 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 to between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday.
• 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.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
There are no significant impacts to population and housing.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

10 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MEASURE
Timing for
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
There are no significant impacts to public services.

XVI. RECREATION
There are no significant impacts to recreation.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION
There are no significant impacts to transportation.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no significant impacts to utilities and service systems.

XX. WILDFIRE
There are no significant impacts to wildfire.

Source: LSA (November 2022).

Appendix A CalEEMod Output Sheets

Valley Health Team
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total project site is 1.23 acres
Construction Phase - Construction is expected to start on July 2023 and last 12-14 months Grading - Set to default
Demolition -
Vehicle Trips - Trips rates based of 406 total daily trips Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mitigation Tier 2

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
City Park

0.36 Acre

0.36 15,681.60
0 Medical Office Building

11.70 1000sqft

0.37 11,700.00
0 Parking Lot

56.00 Space

0.50 22,400.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2024
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstDustMitigation
WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed
0 15
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 1 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I
I
I
I
-5. ± -L
■ ■ i
■li
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 8.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated

0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstEquipMitigation
Tier
No Change
Tier 2
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

10.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

4.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

10.00 15.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 2 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 4 r!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
T
!!
-i-
i
mm

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

2.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/10/2024
7/12/2024
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
5/13/2024
5/31/2024
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
8/7/2023
8/25/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
5/27/2024
6/21/2024
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
8/1/2023
8/11/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
5/28/2024
6/24/2024
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
8/8/2023
8/28/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
8/2/2023
8/14/2023
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
5/14/2024
6/3/2024
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
7/29/2023
7/31/2023
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

0.27 0.37
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

1.96 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
ST_TR

8.57 34.70
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

2.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
SU_TR

1.42 34.70
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

0.78 0.00
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

34.80 34.70
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 3 of 35 ends

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
2023

0.0995

0.8231

0.8101

1.5700e-
003

0.0788

0.0356

0.1144

0.0353

0.0339

0.0693

0.0000
133.6389
133.6389

0.0249

1.2700e-
003
134.6395
2024

0.1747

0.6831

0.8007

1.5100e-
003

0.0127

0.0275

0.0403

3.4500e-
003

0.0265

0.0299

0.0000
126.5668
126.5668

0.0198

1.4600e-
003
127.4965
Maximum

0.1747

0.8231

0.8101

1.5700e-
003

0.0788

0.0356

0.1144

0.0353

0.0339

0.0693

0.0000
133.6389
133.6389

0.0249

1.4600e-
003
134.6395
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

0.0561

1.1756

0.9018

1.5700e-
003

0.0417

0.0446

0.0863

0.0176

0.0445

0.0621

0.0000
133.6388
133.6388

0.0249

1.2700e-
003
134.6393
2024

0.1418

1.0803

0.8614

1.5100e-
003

0.0127

0.0442

0.0569

3.4500e-
003

0.0442

0.0476

0.0000
126.5667
126.5667

0.0198

1.4600e-
003
127.4964
Maximum

0.1418

1.1756

0.9018

1.5700e-
003

0.0417

0.0446

0.0863

0.0176

0.0445

0.0621

0.0000
133.6388
133.6388

0.0249

1.4600e-
003
134.6393
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 4 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule 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

27.84 -49.78
-9.47

0.00 40.51
-40.54

7.42 45.75
-46.86
-10.66

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 7-3-2023
10-2-2023

0.4499

0.5924
2 10-3-2023
1-2-2024

0.4499

0.6126
3 1-3-2024
4-2-2024

0.4208

0.6056
4 4-3-2024
7-2-2024

0.3588

0.5215
5 7-3-2024
9-30-2024

0.0460

0.0498
Highest

0.4499

0.6126

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

0.0560

1.0000e-
005

6.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2200e-
003

0.0000

1.3000e-
003
Energy

8.2000e-
004

7.4100e-
003

6.2200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

0.0000

18.3616

1.8200e-
003

3.5000e-
004

18.5114
Mobile

0.1710

0.2497

1.4024

3.0600e-
003

0.2979

2.5700e-
003

0.3005

0.0797

2.4100e-
003

0.0821

0.0000
287.4111
287.4111

0.0176

0.0168
292.8682
Waste

0.0000

25.6560

0.0000

25.6560

1.5162

0.0000

63.5617
Water

0.0000

0.4658

0.9645

1.4302

0.0480

1.1500e-
003

2.9724
Total

0.2278

0.2572

1.4092

3.1000e-
003

0.2979

3.1300e-
003

0.3011

0.0797

2.9700e-
003

0.0827

26.1218
306.7384
332.8602

1.5836

0.0183
377.9150
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 5 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.0560

1.0000e-
005

6.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.2200e-
003

0.0000

1.3000e-
003
Energy

8.2000e-
004

7.4100e-
003

6.2200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

0.0000

18.3616

1.8200e-
003

3.5000e-
004

18.5114
Mobile

0.1710

0.2497

1.4024

3.0600e-
003

0.2979

2.5700e-
003

0.3005

0.0797

2.4100e-
003

0.0821

0.0000
287.4111
287.4111

0.0176

0.0168
292.8682
Waste

0.0000

25.6560

0.0000

25.6560

1.5162

0.0000

63.5617
Water

0.0000

0.4658

0.9645

1.4302

0.0480

1.1500e-
003

2.9724
Total

0.2278

0.2572

1.4092

3.1000e-
003

0.2979

3.1300e-
003

0.3011

0.0797

2.9700e-
003

0.0827

26.1218
306.7384
332.8602

1.5836

0.0183
377.9150
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 Demolition
Demolition
7/3/2023
7/28/2023
5 20
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
7/31/2023
8/11/2023
5 10
3 Grading
Grading
8/14/2023
8/25/2023
5 10
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 6 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*
-*
■*
■*
I
I
I
■L ■L
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
8/28/2023
5/31/2024
5 200
5 Paving
Paving
6/3/2024
6/21/2024
5 15
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
6/24/2024
7/12/2024
5 15
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 6.00
9 0.56
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Building Construction
Cranes
1 6.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
1 6.00
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 6.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
1 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
1 7.00
80 0.38
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 7.00
247

0.40 Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 6.00
97 0.37
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 7.00
97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,850; Striped Parking Area: 1,344 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 9.38
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 7 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 1 > H- 4- 4- 4- 4-
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
3 8.00
46 0.45
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
Demolition
5 13.00

0.00 6.00

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
Grading
4 10.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
7 20.00

8.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
5 13.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 4.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 8 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I ■H- +• ■+
ii i
ii i
i
■ ■
—
i- r*
i- r*
i- r*
i- r*
1 3.2 Demolition - 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

6.8000e-
004

0.0000

6.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

1.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0147

0.1432

0.1346

2.4000e-
004

6.7700e-
003

6.3300e-
003

0.0000

21.0866

5.3500e-
003

0.0000

21.2202
Total

0.0147

0.1432

0.1346

2.4000e-
004

6.8000e-
004

6.7700e-
003

7.4500e-
003

1.0000e-
004

6.3300e-
003

6.4300e-
003

0.0000

21.0866

5.3500e-
003

0.0000

21.2202
Unmitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1700

0.0000

3.0000e-
005

0.1779
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.0000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.8276

2.0000e-
005

0.8353
Total

4.1000e-
004

6.4000e-
004

3.1500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

3.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.9975

2.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

1.0132
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 9 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

3.2 Demolition - 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

3.1000e-
004

0.0000

3.1000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

8.8600e-
003

0.2121

0.1542

2.4000e-
004

7.1800e-
003

0.0000

21.0865

5.3500e-
003

0.0000

21.2202
Total

8.8600e-
003

0.2121

0.1542

2.4000e-
004

3.1000e-
004

7.1800e-
003

7.4900e-
003

5.0000e-
005

7.1800e-
003

7.2300e-
003

0.0000

21.0865

5.3500e-
003

0.0000

21.2202
Mitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

0.0000

5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.1700

0.0000

3.0000e-
005

0.1779
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.0000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

2.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.8276

2.0000e-
005

0.8353
Total

4.1000e-
004

6.4000e-
004

3.1500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

0.0000

3.0000e-
004

0.0000

0.9975

2.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

1.0132
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 10 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

3.3 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
Fugitive Dust

0.0313

0.0000

0.0313

0.0150

0.0000

0.0150

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

5.6700e-
003

0.0621

0.0332

9.0000e-
005

2.5400e-
003

2.3300e-
003

0.0000

7.5571

2.4400e-
003

0.0000

7.6182
Total

5.6700e-
003

0.0621

0.0332

9.0000e-
005

0.0313

2.5400e-
003

0.0339

0.0150

2.3300e-
003

0.0174

0.0000

7.5571

2.4400e-
003

0.0000

7.6182
Unmitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2546

1.0000e-
005

0.2570
Total

1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2546

1.0000e-
005

0.2570
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 11 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

0.0141

0.0000

0.0141

6.7600e-
003

0.0000

6.7600e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.4500e-
003

0.0747

0.0491

9.0000e-
005

1.8700e-
003

0.0000

7.5571

2.4400e-
003

0.0000

7.6182
Total

2.4500e-
003

0.0747

0.0491

9.0000e-
005

0.0141

1.8700e-
003

0.0160

6.7600e-
003

1.8700e-
003

8.6300e-
003

0.0000

7.5571

2.4400e-
003

0.0000

7.6182
Mitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2546

1.0000e-
005

0.2570
Total

1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

9.5000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

3.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.2546

1.0000e-
005

0.2570
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 12 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

3.4 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

0.0354

0.0000

0.0354

0.0171

0.0000

0.0171

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

6.6700e-
003

0.0723

0.0435

1.0000e-
004

3.0200e-
003

2.7800e-
003

0.0000

9.0520

2.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.1252
Total

6.6700e-
003

0.0723

0.0435

1.0000e-
004

0.0354

3.0200e-
003

0.0384

0.0171

2.7800e-
003

0.0199

0.0000

9.0520

2.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.1252
Unmitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.1800e-
003

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.3183

1.0000e-
005

0.3213
Total

1.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.1800e-
003

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.3183

1.0000e-
005

0.3213
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 13 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

3.4 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

0.0159

0.0000

0.0159

7.7100e-
003

0.0000

7.7100e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1300e-
003

0.0905

0.0607

1.0000e-
004

2.4300e-
003

0.0000

9.0520

2.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.1251
Total

3.1300e-
003

0.0905

0.0607

1.0000e-
004

0.0159

2.4300e-
003

0.0184

7.7100e-
003

2.4300e-
003

0.0101

0.0000

9.0520

2.9300e-
003

0.0000

9.1251
Mitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.1800e-
003

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.3183

1.0000e-
005

0.3213
Total

1.5000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.1800e-
003

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

0.0000

4.0000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

1.1000e-
004

0.0000

0.3183

1.0000e-
005

0.3213
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 14 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied -*

3.5 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

0.0686

0.5270

0.5675

9.9000e-
004

0.0232

0.0224

0.0000

81.7196

0.0139

0.0000

82.0665
Total

0.0686

0.5270

0.5675

9.9000e-
004

0.0232

0.0224

0.0000

81.7196

0.0139

0.0000

82.0665
Unmitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

3.9000e-
004

0.0158

4.7400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

1.0000e-
004

2.4900e-
003

6.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

6.9237

4.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

7.2352
Worker

2.7900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

0.0213

6.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

7.2300e-
003

1.9100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.9400e-
003

0.0000

5.7295

1.7000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

5.7827
Total

3.1800e-
003

0.0176

0.0260

1.3000e-
004

9.5900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

9.7200e-
003

2.6000e-
003

1.3000e-
004

2.7300e-
003

0.0000

12.6532

2.1000e-
004

1.2000e-
003

13.0179
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 15 of 35 ends

Valley Health Team - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied I I I I I I I I I ■ I
:i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i

0.0378

0.7798

0.6065

9.9000e-
004

0.0329

0.0000

81.7195

0.0139

0.0000

82.0664
Total

0.0378

0.7798

0.6065

9.9000e-
004

0.0329

0.0000

81.7195

0.0139

0.0000

82.0664
Mitigated Construction On-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
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

3.9000e-
004

0.0158

4.7400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

1.0000e-
004

2.4900e-
003

6.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

6.9237

4.0000e-
005

1.0400e-
003

7.2352
Worker

2.7900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

0.0213

6.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
003

3.0000e-
005

7.2300e-
003

1.9100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.9400e-
003

0.0000

5.7295

1.7000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

5.7827
Total

3.1800e-
003

0.0176

0.0260

1.3000e-
004

9.5900e-
003

1.3000e-
004

9.7200e-
003

2.6000e-
003

1.3000e-
004

2.7300e-
003

0.0000

12.6532

2.1000e-
004

1.2000e-
003

13.0179
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 4/21/2022 11:21 AM

Page 16 of 35 ends

Fresno City CouncilJune 29, 2023

Fresno City Council
June 29, 2023