Exhibit M - Environmental Assessment P22-02376/P22-04389, Including Studies [6/16/2023] — Fresno City Council, August 10, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

5.2000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

4.1400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4500e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1361

3.0000e-
005

1.1463
Total

5.2000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

4.1400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4500e-
003

3.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.1361

3.0000e-
005

1.1463
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.6289

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6300e-
003

0.0110

0.0163

3.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.2979

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.3012
Total

0.6305

0.0110

0.0163

3.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.2979

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.3012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 18 of 30 ends

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.6000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.5681

2.0000e-
005

0.5731
Total

2.6000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.5681

2.0000e-
005

0.5731
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.6289

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6300e-
003

0.0110

0.0163

3.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.2979

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.3012
Total

0.6305

0.0110

0.0163

3.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000

2.2979

1.3000e-
004

0.0000

2.3012
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 19 of 30 ends

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.6000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.5681

2.0000e-
005

0.5731
Total

2.6000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.5681

2.0000e-
005

0.5731
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 20 of 30 ends

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

0.2469

0.4415

2.3271

5.5400e-
003

0.5311

4.9700e-
003

0.5360

0.1421

4.6700e-
003

0.1468

0.0000
520.7970
520.7970

0.0273

0.0291
530.1396
Unmitigated

0.2469

0.4415

2.3271

5.5400e-
003

0.5311

4.9700e-
003

0.5360

0.1421

4.6700e-
003

0.1468

0.0000
520.7970
520.7970

0.0273

0.0291
530.1396

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
490.44
545.38
420.76
1,415,103
1,415,103
Total
490.44
545.38
420.76
1,415,103
1,415,103
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

10.80 7.30

7.50 45.60

19.00 35.40
86 11
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise

0.511221

0.052103

0.170611

0.160645

0.028932

0.007649

0.013284

0.025916

0.000654

0.000315

0.023645

0.001472

0.003552
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 21 of 30 ends

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

0.0000

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
NaturalGas
Mitigated

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 22 of 30 ends

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
914350

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832
Total

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
914350

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832
Total

4.9300e-
003

0.0421

0.0179

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

0.0000

48.7932

9.4000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

49.0832
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 23 of 30 ends

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
276779

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
Total

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
276779

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
Total

25.6086

4.1400e-
003

5.0000e-
004

25.8619
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 24 of 30 ends

Armstrong Apartments - Maximum buildout of the proposed designation - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ii i
i.
ii
k,
ii I I I
k, I l I
ii I l I
ii
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

0.3424

0.0308

0.5079

1.9000e-
004

4.7800e-
003

0.0000

29.8375

1.3400e-
003

5.3000e-
004

30.0295
Unmitigated

0.3424

0.0308

0.5079

1.9000e-
004

4.7800e-
003

0.0000

29.8375

1.3400e-
003

5.3000e-
004

30.0295

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

0.0629

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.2617

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

2.9300e-
003

0.0251

0.0107

1.6000e-
004

2.0300e-
003

0.0000

29.0249

5.6000e-
004

5.3000e-
004

29.1974
Landscaping

0.0150

5.7300e-
003

0.4973

3.0000e-
005

2.7600e-
003

0.0000

0.8126

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.8321
Total

0.3424

0.0308

0.5079

1.9000e-
004

4.7900e-
003

0.0000

29.8375

1.3400e-
003

5.3000e-
004

30.0295
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 25 of 30 ends

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0629

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.2617

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

2.9300e-
003

0.0251

0.0107

1.6000e-
004

2.0300e-
003

0.0000

29.0249

5.6000e-
004

5.3000e-
004

29.1974
Landscaping

0.0150

5.7300e-
003

0.4973

3.0000e-
005

2.7600e-
003

0.0000

0.8126

7.8000e-
004

0.0000

0.8321
Total

0.3424

0.0308

0.5079

1.9000e-
004

4.7900e-
003

0.0000

29.8375

1.3400e-
003

5.3000e-
004

30.0295
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 26 of 30 ends

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490
Unmitigated

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490

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

4.36532 /

2.75205

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490
Total

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 27 of 30 ends

1. tlI
i.

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

4.36532 /

2.75205

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490
Total

4.4616

0.1427

3.4200e-
003

9.0490
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Unmitigated

6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 28 of 30 ends

1. i.

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

30.82 6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Total

6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

30.82 6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Total

6.2562

0.3697

0.0000

15.4994
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 29 of 30 ends

1. il I
k, I
A. i
i.

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/23/2023 11:25 AM

Page 30 of 30 ends

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JUNE 2023
CITY OF FRESNO – General Plan Amendment-Rezone No. P22-04389/Development Permit No. P22-02376 | 175

6.2 Appendix B: CHRIS Record Search Results, NAHC Correspondence, Historic Review Report • CHRIS Record Search Results: Prepared by Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) on January 10, 2023 (Record Search File Number 22-321) and November 28, 2022 (Record Search File Number 22-481).
• NAHC Correspondence: Prepared by California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 16, 2023.
• Historic Review Report: Prepared by Karana Hattersley -Drayton, M.A., Architectural Historian , dated February 12, 2023.

To: Shin Tu Record Search 22-481
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Date: January 10, 2023

Re: Armstrong Apartments (Development Permit No. P22-02376)

County: Fresno

Map(s): Clovis 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical R esources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, res earchers, and t he public. Re commendations mad e b y IC coordin ators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the eval uation or opinion of the State Hi storic Preserva tion Officer in carrying out t he OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include kno wn and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State His torical L andmarks, Calif ornia Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Histor ic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been sub mitted to the OHP are availa ble via this records search. A dditional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS

According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies completed within the project area. Additionally, t here have been four cultural resource studies conducted within the one-half mile radius: FR-01130, 03013, 03014, and 3016.

Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
California State University, Bakersfield
Mail Stop: 72 DOB
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311-1022
(661)654-2289
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.csub.edu/ssjvic
-
California
Historical
Resources
J_n formation
_S y stem
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Tulare
ft
■'
. • 'o

Record Search 22-481

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS

According to the in formation i n ou r files, t here are no recorded resources within the p roject area or within the one-half mile radius, and it is unknown if any exist there.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register o f Hi storic Places , the Ca lifornia Register of H istorical Resources, t he Cali fornia Points o f Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

W
e under stand this pro ject consists of construction of a 64 -unit multi -family reside ntial structure .

Further, we understand the property is currently developed with five structures, built in 1962. According to our records, these structures have never been recorded or evaluated for historical significance . Therefore, prior to alteration or demolition of the existing structures, we recommend they first be recorded and evaluated for historical significance by a qualified, professional consultant. Additionally, if any cultural resource s are unearthed during ground disturbance activities, all work must halt in the area of the find and a qualified, professional consultant should be called out to assess the findings and make the appropriate mitigation recommendations. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We al
so recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will p rovide you wi th a current li st of N ative American in dividuals/organizations that can assist yo u wi th information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Na tive groups in the area. The C ommission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any , exist within this pr oject area and the way in which these resources might b
e managed. Finally, ple ase consult wi th t he lead agency on th is projec t to deter mine if any other cultural resource inv estigation is r equired. If you need any add itional informat ion or have any questi ons or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

C
eleste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: January 10, 2023

Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE A MERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

February 16, 2023

Shin Tu
Precision Civil Engineering

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Armstrong Apartments (Development Permit No. P22-02376) Project, Fresno County

Dear Mr. Tu:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

V.
<oZ
ft3:z
i
d.

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Elizabeth Kipp, Chairperson
P.O. Box
337

Auberry, CA,
93602
Phone: (
559
)
374
-
0066
Fax: (
559
)
374-0055
[email protected]
Western Mono
Cold Springs Rancheria of
Mono Indians
Carol Bill, Chairperson
P.O. Box
209

Tollhouse, CA,
93667
Phone: (
559
)
855
-
5043
Fax: (
559
)
855-4445
[email protected]
Mono
Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal
Government
Robert Ledger, Chairperson
2191
West Pico Ave.

Fresno, CA,
93705
Phone: (
559
)
540
-
6346
[email protected]
Foothill Yokut
Mono
Kings River Choinumni Farm
Tribe
Stan Alec,
3515
East Fedora Avenue
Fresno, CA,
93726
Phone: (
559
)
647
-
3227
Foothill Yokut
North Fork Mono Tribe
Ron Goode, Chairperson
13396
Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA,
93619
Phone: (
559
)
299
-
3729
rwgoode
911
@hotmail.com
Mono
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box
717

Linden, CA,
95236
Phone: (
209
)
887
-
3415
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Timothy Perez,
P.O. Box
717

Linden, CA,
95236
Phone: (
209
)
662
-
2788
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
Picayune Rancheria of
Chukchansi Indians
Claudia Gonzales, Chairwoman
P.O. Box
2226

Oakhurst, CA,
93644
Phone: (
559
)
412
-
5590
[email protected]
Foothill Yokut
Table Mountain Rancheria
Brenda Lavell, Chairperson
P.O. Box
410

Friant, CA,
93626
Phone: (
559
)
822
-
2587
Fax: (
559
)
822-2693
[email protected]
Yokut
Traditional Choinumni Tribe
David Alvarez, Chairperson
2415
E. Houston Avenue
Fresno, CA,
93720
Phone: (
559
)
217
-
0396
Fax: (
559
)
292-5057
[email protected]
Foothill Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box
589

Porterville, CA,
93258
Phone: (
559
)
781
-
4271
Fax: (
559
)
781-4610
[email protected]
Yokut
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179
Rock Haven Ct.

Salinas, CA,
93906
Phone: (
831
)
443
-
9702
kwood
8934
@aol.com
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public
Resources Code and Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.

This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3
,
65352.4
et seq. and Public Resources Code
Sections
21080.3.1
for the proposed Armstrong Apartments (Development Permit No. P 22-02376
) Project, Fresno County.

PROJ-2023-
000715
02/16/2023 12:14 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Fresno County
2/16/2023

February 12, 2023

To: Scott Vincent via e-mail The Vincent Company
1500 Shaw Avenue Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93711

From: Karana Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.

Architectural Historian
[email protected]
4110 N. Maroa Avenue
Fresno, CA 93704

Re: Historic Review, (for) Proposed Multi -family Residential Development Located at 2594 N. Armstrong Avenue 93727 (APN: 310- 250-13).

Summary: Karana Hattersley -Drayton, M.A. who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications as both an ar chitectural historian and historian, was contracted on January 26, 2023 to provide a historic review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of buildings located on the

4.39-acre parcel at 2594 N. Armstrong Avenue in southeast Fresno. The fou r buildings are slated for demolition for a proposed multi-family development of 64 units.

Ms. Drayton visited the site on February 4 th to photograph and record the buildings (see attached State of California DPR forms). Ms. Drayton then researched the history of the site using County Atlases, local histories and an interview with the current owner, Bob Duley on 8 February.

This report documents the efforts to identify historic properties that may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 (d) (1). The report also fulfills California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements that mandate public agencies determine whether a project will have a significant impact on important historical resources. A subs tantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant impact. As defined by CEQA, in part, a “historical resource” is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register A
II li
II
II■ 111
of Historical Resources (CRHR) [14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 15064.5 (a)(3)].

Findings: Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 (d) (1) none of the four buildings located on this 4.39-acre parcel appear to meet eligibility for the California Register (or Fresno's Local Register of Historic Resources). There is no evidence that the cl962 residence, garage and office building are associated with significant historic events (Criterion 1) or are associated with persons of importance in local or regional history (Criterion 2). All are typical mid-century rural buildings (Criterion 3). Additonally, there is no evidence that the buildings may yield information important in prehistory (Criterion 4). Although the owner of the property in 1891, George Eggers, was important in early farming and viticulture in the Fresno area, none of the extant buildings are attributed to his tenure. The shed outbuilding on site appears to predate the 1962 residence, based on its materials and construction, however, it has lost any historic context and thus is also not a historic resource. The demolition of these buildings will therefore not create a substantial adverse change to a historic resource.

History of the Site: The City of Fresno was founded in 1872 by the Central Pacific Railroad. The Contract and Finance Company, a subsidiary of the Railroad, bought 4,480 acres in a desolate area where Dry Creek drained into the plains. Surveyor Edward H. Mix laid out the new town in blocks 320 feet by 400 feet, with 20 foot alleys, with lots 25x150 feet fronting on 80-foot wide streets parallel to and on both sides of the tracks (Clough and Secrest 1984:121).

Fresno’s location was uninviting at best, with barren sand plains in all directions.

Fresno grew slowly but in 1874 it was able to wrestle the county seat away from the former mining town of Millerton (Hoover 1990:88).

The 1880s, however, were prosperous years and the desert was turned into profitable farmland with the introduction of irrigation and agricultural colonies. By 1903 there were 48 separate colonies or tracts in Fresno County representing approximately 71,080 acres (Ranter 1994:9). These colonies helped to break up the vast estates and initiated what agricultural historian Donald Pisani has termed "the horticultural small-farm phase" of California agriculture (Datel 1999:97). Several agricultural colonies were located near to the project site-for example, the Temperance Colony was located due south, the Eggers Colony was adjacent to it-however, ownership of the parcels in this section (Section 27 T13S R21E) were small independent landowners.

The earliest known owner of the parcel was George H. Eggers, who owned the entirety of Section 27 in 1891 (Thompson 1891:60). Eggers and his brother were early Fresno area wheat and barley farmers who by the 1880s were growing grapes for their winery located west on Sections 29 T13S R21E. The winery produced 65,000 gallons in 1884 and 125,000 in 1886, of all the typical wines—Claret, Angelicas, Ports and white. The Egger's Vineyard Company Winery did not turn a profit until 1885 (Clough and Secrest 1984: 149; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps 1888, 1898, 1906, 1918 -1919). The Eggers Ranch house was located on the current site of the Fresno Air Terminal (Rehart 1996:58).

By 1907 Section 27 was subdivided into 40-acre parcels. In 1907 Lot 7 was owned by an R. M. Nill. From 1909-1913 S. E. Nill is listed as the owner. By 1935 O.K. Cushing owned the property. The residence on site was constructed circa 1962 according to various realty listings (redfin.com). Circa 1992 to circa 1999 the property operated as a nursery, Fresno Tree Farm (Duley 8 February 2023).
60 TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE £1 EAST, j
w
a
Cafe
ii#-
v/ ■
GWWm. CM. J.W J W.
3/ ie s 3 2
&
tt
ft"?Owe n Helm Cote Cs/e Cate. jmesu.Q
•$Ts~ij
¥ »%\ rII.
n
CM. John J D. /J.D.R T. tram
r \ 0 it ua ib) Fn.\ /}\ Owen. Cola Rayburn Rayburn. Ijelm. Les/sr.U y \\i ctto\ l&r* lt>\\
fla3to\ •ft/\ at_H,
jiJU,
d.n.\ J.D.Wm H. "jV wastf,\ yfhjL\rr •=t 13t IS ie\
’£enih'L\ !$*£ : Rayburn. HelmBowcher. Jo arm a n . S m\ &?*l $ /tj « ? t*
\
BnetuiOe
IT CUitt
§w:r.Alt'. III 1.
•e
Vo/; Schmitt My® rSane Torpey M.F.

M
■H
i-£ff- M81t; J*r MrsWWM
_ TO
1 i(S. kcWntw. Carry
KJe»] . W4>«
SeofiW. 'hcALCt G W. Tarpey Chrmanchtr.lit
WCmtio Taft. StmheB H.T. ITr
linet/e. £»fiw WerfS Hg CK
*3lM*. A! A.H C
I l
Claiki Krues
an.

ME# 2 ItS Wtn.L.

India loloo/mson.

HP.w?i
to3 ». r:A ; Cfl
i O''! Uj§ B ammMJh'
!'
G.HaH.C. Evans Geo H.

Berta! &Oeattenw 87
T
W~ JJeM
' ’ yJtti/.
5T51J4. jt*few* _
Pee*#,
i\: p>^- Worton.-Eggere Eggerswb. Jot.

Wm.ChishalrnT1 |
« I. :5*w»
ismtPr
n*9*/V
ffcrrvbIrisw.
a
mi mmtrfJAtticMe Y .
frffr TT IT ,S.ce i. .F.liijii?i/i/
■F| Fr W. 1. tt-.for1/7. SASmith.mJ ™ ^
35f*7i cNM 0 "j I
. hi
i
JIT Wallace\*\m ueF
J H i*"! j
Vjuma Sp5 I
t£gIff.j/pei ary. JW1m in. f!S
Thompson Atlas 1891:60
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 (d) (1) none of the four buildings located on this

4.39-acre parcel appear to meet eligibility for the California Register (or Fresno's Local Register of Historic Resources). Although the owner of the property in 1891, George Eggers, was important in early farming and viticulture in the Fresno area, none of the extant buildings are attributed to his tenure. The shed outbuilding on site appears to predate the 1962 residence, based on its materials and construction, however, it has lost any historic context and thus is also not a historic resource. The demolition of these buildings will therefore not create a substantial adverse change to a historic resource.

Karana Hatters ley-Drayton has a B.A., M.A. and completed three years of coursework for a Ph. D. in architectural history, all at U.C. Berkeley. Ms. Drayton moved to Fresno in 1999 to work as an architectural historian for Caltrans, District 06, and in 2002 she was hired by the City of Fresno as the Historic Preservation Project Manager. She retired from the City in 2017 and currently teaches architectural history at California State University, Fresno. i r4
i
M
\ i
< \
r;
/iv'
r/
ai .0>
'
ii
■' ir.*a;Tip j
i Inf
Mr.

W
y
I
-r
I
gassj*-
V-.*,
•
m* ar.
~i f*i!X
Rear Elevation of Office (Map Reference #3J
References:

Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County-The Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900.

Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.

Date!, Robin Elisabeth
1999 “Picturing the Central Valley through Maps.” In Picturing California's Other Landscape: the Great Central Valley. Ed. Heath Schenker, 93-116. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California.

Duley, Bob.

Personal interview 4 February 2023.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch and William N. Abeloe.

Historic Spots in California, 4th edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle.1990 Stanford University Press.
2008
"Mid-century Modernism Historic Context." Prepared by Planning Associates Inc. for the City of Fresno.

Panter, John
“Central California Colony: ‘Marvel of the Desert.” Fresno Past And Present 36:2 (Summer 1994) 1-11, Fresno Historical Society.

Rehart, Catherine Morrison
1996. The Valley's Legends and Legacies. Word Dancer Press, Fresno, California.

Maps
1935
Progressive atlas of Fresno County: compiled from official and private data, Progressive Map Service .Fresno, CA.
1909, 1911, 1913
Guard, W.C.

Atlas of Fresno County, California, W.C. Guard, Fresno, CA. 1907
Harvey, William Sr.

Atlas of Fresno County, California, William Harvey, Sr. 1907. 1891
Thompson, Thomas Hinckley
Official Historical Atlas Map of Fresno County. T.H. Thompson, Oakland, California.

Sanborn maps May 1888,1898,1906, but not depicted on 1918 >1919 Sanborns Primary #
HRI#____
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code_ DateReviewer
P1. Resource Name(s) or Number: (Former) Fresno Tree Farm *P2. Location: *a. County: Fresno
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Clovis 1964 Photorevised 1981, Parcel located in the West 14 of Lot 7 Section 27 T13S R21E
c. Address: 2594 North Armstrong Avenue, Fresno 93727
d. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 310-250-13
*P3a. Description: Four buildings are located on this 4.39-acre parcel. Map Reference #1 is a 3 bedroom, 1 story, 1918 sf single-family residence on a raised concrete foundation. The building faces south on the parcel and has a cross gabled low pitched roof with exposed rafter tails. The frame constructed building has an irregular plan and is clad with vertical wood siding. All windows are 2 pane vinyl clad horizontal or vertical sliders. An external brick chimney is on the east elevation. The front door is located in the center of the facade and has a heavy security screen door. A single mature palm tree is located in front of the home, outside the yard's perimeter fence. Map Reference #2 is a detached 2-car garage. It is located off the northwest corner of the residence and faces north onto a gravel driveway. The building is framed construction with vertical wood siding. The front gabled roof has a medium pitch of asbestos shingles with a boxed cornice. A door to the garage is located on the east elevation and there is one vinyl sash window on the south end of the building. Continued
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2 (Single family residence), HP4 (ancillary buildings) *P4. Resources Present: • Building
P5b Photo date: 4 February
2023
&
RS *P6. Date Constructed/Age
and Sources: 1962 redfin.com!i*
if;,-
A
rjT
*P7. Owner and Address:

Armstrong LLC
978 W. Alluvial, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93711
r.
— )
■ -M"
k ,
li
*P8. Recorded by: Karana
Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.
(for) The Vincent Company
1500 Shaw Avenue Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93711
■ %
r," 1.
t) lV. ■■ i-;- rfm
-;t.

IEm. *€S> ;1
MM
*P9. Date Recorded: 4
February 2023
a. «.
£ • ..w- -.r'
W-
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
Historic Evaluation for Proposed Demolition of Property Located at 2594 North Armstrong*P11. Report Citation:

Avenue, Fresno, as part of an Initial Study for Armstrong Apartments (P22-02376)' it
• Building, Structure and Object Report; •Continuation Sheet‘Attachments:
^Required informationDPR 523A (1/95)
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary #
HRI#_ __
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial_______
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code_ Reviewer Date
P1. Resource Name(s) or Number: Fresno Tree Farm
*P2. Location: *a. County: Fresno
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Clovis 1964 Photorevised 1981, Parcel located in West 1/2 of Lot 7 Section 27 T13S R21E c. Address: 2594 North Armstrong Avenue, Fresno 93727
d. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 310-250-13
Map Reference #3: Located south of the residence is a one-story gable end building*P3a. Description:
formerly used by the company as an office (Jeff Noble, 4 February 2023). The rectangular plan frame building has vertical board siding with decorative scalloped-edged boards under the facade roof ridge. The medium pitch roof has a boxed cornice with a simple fascia board trim. A solid wood door is located on the gable entrance, as well as on the south elevation. A former entrance has been sealed off on the north side of the building although the shed roof porch covering is still in place. Windows on the facade and side elevations are vinyl sliders.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP4 (Outbuilding/former office) *P4. Resources Present: •Building
P5b Photo date: 4 February
2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age
and Sources: Circa 1962, per
information from realtor on
house.
61v 1,; e
*
'J0
*P7. Owner and Address:

Armstrong LLC
978 W. Alluvial. Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93711
MM
iT
n
*P8. Recorded by: Karana
Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.
(for) The Vincent Company
1500 Shaw Avenue Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93711■Aits
*P9. Date Recorded: 4
February 2023
A.
____
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

Armstrong Avenue, Fresno as part of an Initial Study for Armstrong Apartments (P22-02376). u
Flistoric/CEQA Evaluation for Proposed Demolition of Property Located at 2594 North ‘Attachments: • Building, Structure and Object Report; •Continuation Sheet DPR 523A (1/95) ^Required information
Primary #
HRI #___
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings.

Review Code_ Reviewer. Date
P1. Resource Name(s) or Number: (Former) Fresno Tree Farm *P2. Location: *a. County: Fresno
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Clovis 1964 Photorevised 1981, Parcel located in in the West of Lot 7 Section 27 T13S R21E
c. Address: 2594 North Armstrong Avenue, Fresno 93727
d. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 310-250-13
*P3a. Description: Map Reference #4: Located north of the residence is a side gabled three bay shed which is open on the south elevation. The corrugated sheet metal roof has a medium pitch and exposed rafter tails. The building is constructed of wide vertical wood boards, with horizontal boarding under the roof ridge. A shed roof addition on the east elevation is enclosed and the cladding is vertical board and batten.

A door of vertical boards with hinges is located on the southeast end of this addition. One single pane casement window is located on the west side of the shed. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP4 (outbuilding/shed)
*P4. Resources Present: •Building
P5b Photo date: 4 February
2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age
and Sources: circa 1940,
estimated guess based on
construction and materials
i*
A l;,v \K J «
■>
*P7. Owner and Address:

Armstrong LLC
978 W. Alluvial, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93711
1__
*P8. Recorded by: Karana
Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.
(for) The Vincent Company
1500 Shaw Avenue Suite 304
Fresno, CA 93711
-m
-
i
r*< ■ ' »
*P9. Date Recorded: 4
February 2023
*
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:

Armstrong Avenue, Fresno, as part of an Initial Study for Armstrong Apartments (P22-02376).” MHistoric/CEQA Evaluation for Proposed Demolition of Property Located at 2594 North ‘Attachments: • Building, Structure and Object Report; •Continuation Sheet DPR 523A (1/95) ^Required information
Primary #
HRI#_____
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*NRHP Status Code: 6Z
'Resource Name: (Former) Fresno Tree Farm, 2594 North Armstrong Avenue, Fresno 93727 B4. Present Use: VacantB3. Original Use: Farmiand/Rural Residential/Nursery *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular ranch
*B6. Construction History: The residence on the parcel was built in 1962 according to the realty listing. The shed structure may well be a vestige from an earlier period, due to the building materials and construction. *B7. Moved? "No
*B8. Related Features: The
B9b. Builder: UnknownB9a. Architect:
*B10. Significance: Theme: Rural Residential Area: Southeast Fresno Period of Significance: N/A
N/A
Property Type: Rural ResidentialA/emacular Applicable Criteria: N/A Four buildings are located on this 4.39-acre rural parcel: a 1962 residence and detached garage, a former office and a 3-bay implement shed. The property operated as a nursery, Fresno Tree Farm, from circa 1992 to circa 1999 (Duley 8 February 2023). The home on site was a rental for the company. The earliest known owner of the parcel was George H. Eggers, who owned the entirety of Section 27 in 1891 (Thompson 1891:60). Eggers and his brother were early Fresno area wheat and barley farmers who by the 1880s were growing grapes for their winery located west on Sections 29 T13S R21E. The winery produced 65,000 gallons in 1884 and 125,000 in 1886, of alll the typical wines-Claret, Angelicas, Ports and white. The Egger's Vineyard Company Winery did not turn a profit until 1885 (Clough and Secrest 1984: 149; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps 1888, 1898, 1906, 1918 -1919). The Eggers Ranchhouse was located on the current site of the Fresno Air Terminal (Rehart 1996:58).

Section 27 was subdivided by 1907 into 40-acre
parcels. Although Southeast Fresno included numerous
agricultural colonies-for example, the Temperance Colony was located due south, the Eggers Colony was adjacent to it- ownership of the parcels in this section appeared to be small independent landowners. (Continued).
fall
1v k: " i-
.1- it. fi
ll 4
i*B12. References:

County Atlas 1907; Guard, W.C. County Atlas 1909, 1911, 1913; Progressive Atlas 1935; Clough and Secrest Fresno County: The Pioneer Years... 1984; Rehart, The Valley's Legends and Legacies 1996; Personal communication with Bob Duley 8
February 2023;
Thompson County Atlas 1891; Harvey
itefe
s 4
P. I
*B14. Evaluator: Karana Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.
4110 N. Maroa Avenue Fresno, CA 93704
'Date of Evaluation: 11 February 2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
‘Required informationDPR 52SB (1/95)
Primary #
HRI#
State of California — The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 6 ends

Recorded by: Karana Hattersley-Drayton, M.A.

DPR 5231.(1/95)
Resource: (Former) Fresno Tree Farm (2594 North Armstrong Avenue, Fresno 93727) *Date: 4 February 2023 ■ Continuation
'Required information
BSO continued: 1907 Lot 7 was owned by an R. M. Nill. From 1909-1913 S. E. Nill is listed as the owner.

By 1935 O.K. Cushing owned the property.
jvu ||y,
/ 'i»~mnnn’ » Ip
G E
Vi * 4
Brocks
A - -curd)
LOSH.

Jr rA'“iteSiw^rsPan trie I I
1 itfaiac'
'
I t/rjfl,
mu ~Ty
* a.v a> y
tiA t*A 11
M.F. tit
rf
-s
y /
bhn.lQi
¥>/■ n
21 -MrMi®
•uLUL-.d
a
SI v,/
Mr, N.

Tarpey incher.

HT St
*fa/on toierfs.
rr?<f*r-
SC/dS
v.4 *»N* k* S V
-4* (
♦ J
iEfyer? ClarkeWmL.

Mdlcolmson
WP Hr,
/Deo.H.Evens Bt-larlUl,
Oai/o!rnnhui27
wi rr^—nr& ^ nt'<• |h
(«• IOnEgg ere ✓ T70S.

Jf/rtift)
C.Af.Vim ChisholmCnsmBi
t.

J A Hoke.
■ ft? BT
"?TT
/S /c4/fl'[//
M?-?- JbJl’rt io r/u?w I./TL/l
Thompson Atlas 1891:60 Progressive Atlas 1935:41
Map Ref. #2 Garage
X
■'IT
! ■
«■■
Findings: Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 (d) (1) the four buildings located on this 4.39-acre parcel have been evaluated for their potential eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. None of the 4 buildings on the property appear to meet eligibility for the California Register (or even Fresno's Local Register of Historic Resources). There is no evidence that the c1962 residence, garage and office building on site are associated with significant historic events (Criterion 1) or are associated with persons of importance in local or regional history (Criterion 2). All are typical mid-century rural buildings (Criterion 3).

Additonally, there is no evidence that the buildings may yield information important in prehistory (Criterion 4). Although the owner of the property in 1891, George Eggers, was important in early farming and viticulture in the Fresno area, none of the extant buildings are attributed to his tenure. The shed outbuilding on site appears to predate the 1962 residence, based on its materials and construction, however, it has lost any historic context and thus is also not a historic resource. The demolition of these buildings will therefore not create a substantial adverse change to a historic resource. •Y^J w
m
i_j
t-_u
I
M v nr
« *
me;, 5* >A.»
JEW*
«uHw ,V*“
A
§ v
UMS
iT-ll#
A
vv - ■^7*V 1 VT^
#4
’•
i V rt
1 ifT*
ir :* i
&nr~
;
:p
*j 1 sv .It • I F.1 «*l « v•< %* • *■ ml
J .
■ '■*.*|(
4 *
r. *'rn \• -? a ■>
i,
pP’fA ■ »■
Jfcyf*- #1
I
Hi ■r< tt.i / *•> «
fi.
» i*>jtV
4( ► *
» V*5V ffy mm* • •> v *•W|
* xj * ■* >
. ■
».v *
►
*uh yt _frif. i

4.V.
»>T«v
4,•1-i i
ffc*. • i/a> ■»
ft.-
3 lA Acl
II /■4*
*
HL *•'«
r'y i
4r
&
t , it: M
.
f M
i Imagery ©2023 CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, U S. Geological Survey•T#T» Figure 1: Historic Review Armstrong Apartments Proposed Project

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JUNE 2023
CITY OF FRESNO – General Plan Amendment-Rezone No. P22-04389/Development Permit No. P22-02376 | 176

6.3 Appendix C: Acoustical Analysis
Prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc., on December 22, 2022.

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS

ARMSTRONG APARTMENTS
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

WJVA Project No. 22-62

PREPARED FOR

PRECISION ENGINEERING
1234 O STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721

PREPARED BY

WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 21, 2023

113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923

sii wjv acoustics

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 2

INTRODUCTION

The project is a proposed 64‐unit multi‐family residential deve lopment to be located in Fresno, California. The project site is located along the east side of N. Armstrong Avenue, approximately 375 feet north of E. Clinton Avenue. The City of Fresno has req uested an acoustical analysis to quantify project site noise exposure and determine noise mitigation requirements. This analysis, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon a project site plan prepared by The Vincent Company Architects (dated 6‐20‐22), traffic data provided by the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) and the findings of on‐site noise leve l measurements. Revisions to the site plan may affect the findings and recommendations of thi s r e p o r t . T h e s i t e p l a n i s provided as Figure 1.

Appendix A provides a description of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported are in A‐weighted d ecibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighting, as it provides a high degree of correlation with human annoyance and health effects. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 3

NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA

General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element provides noise le vel criteria for land use compatibility for both transportation and non‐transportation noise sources. The General Plan sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sour c e s i n t e r m s o f t h e D a y ‐ N i g h t Average Level (L dn). The L dn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐ hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.

Table I provides the General Plan noise level standards for transportation noise sources. Exterior noise standards are to be applied at the outdoor activity areas of residential land uses. Outdoor a c t i v i t y a r e a s a r e g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o b e b a c k y a r d s o f s i n gle‐family residential uses and common use outdoor areas (such as pool areas, BBQ and picnic areas, playground areas, etc.) as well as individual unit decks, patios and balconies of multi‐family residential uses.

TABLE I

CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS

TRANSPORTATION (NON-AIRCRAFT) NOISE SOURCES
Noise‐Sensitive Land Use
Outdoor Activity Areas1 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
1 Where the location of the 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.

Source: City of Fresno General Plan

Implementation Policy NS‐1‐a o f t h e G e n e r a l P l a n p r o v i d e s g u i d a n c e i n r e g a r d s t o t h e development of new noise sensitive land uses (including residential developments).

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

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 4
for non‐sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA Ldn o r C N E L a s maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generate d w h i c h m a y impinge on neighboring properties.

The General Plan also provides nois e level standards for non‐tr ansportation (stationary) noise sources. The General Plan noise level standards for non‐transportation noise sources are identical to those provided in the City’s Municipal code, provided below in Table II.

Implementation Policy NS‐1‐i of the General Plan Noise Element provides guidance in regards to mitigation for new developments and projects that have potentia l t o res ult in a nois e‐ rel ate d impact at existing noise‐sensitive land uses.

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, railroad s, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure cri teria established by [Table I] and [Table II] to determine impacts, and require deve lopers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 9‐2 and 9‐3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

Noise mitigation measures may include:

 The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;

 Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings;

 Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers;

 Installation of soundproofing materials and double‐glazed windows; and

 Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including de liveries and trash pickup.

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

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 5
Implementation Policy NS‐1‐j of the General Plan Noise Element provides guidance in regards to the establishment of a significance threshold when determining an increase in noise levels over existing ambient noise levels.

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 immed iate vicinity by 3 dB L
dn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.

Commentary: When an increase in noise would result in a “significant” impact (increase of three dBA or more) to residents or
/g3businesses, then noise mitigation
would be required to reduce noise exposure. If the increase in noise is less than three dBA, then the noise impact is considered insignificant and no noise mitigation is needed. By setting a specific threshold of significance in t he General Plan, this policy facilitates making a determination of environmental impact, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. It helps the City det ermine whether (1) the potential impact of a development project on the noise environment warrants mitigation, or (2) a statement of overriding considerations will be required.

Municipal Code
Section 15‐2506 of the City of Fresno Municipal code establishe s hourly acoustical performance standards for non‐transportation noise sources. The standards, provided in Table II, are made more restrictive during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Additionally, the municipal code states that when ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels described in Table II, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the existin g ambient noise levels, plus five (5) dB. Section 15‐2506 of the Municipal Code is consistent with Im plementing Policy NS‐1‐I of the Noise Element of the City of Fresno General Plan (adopted 12/18/14).

TABLE II
NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS, dBA
CITY OF FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15-2506

Daytime (7 a.m.‐10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m.‐7 a.m.)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
50 70 45 60
Source: City of Fresno Municipal Code

Additional guidance is provided in Section 10‐102(b) of the City’s Municipal Code. Section 10 provides existing ambient noise levels to be applied to various districts, further divided into various hours of the day. Table III describes the assumed minimu m a m b i e n t n o i s e l e v e l s b y district and time. Section 10‐102(b) states “For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 6
is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a p eriod of fifteen minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of d ay at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made. Where the ambient noise level is less than that designated in this section, however, the noise level specified herein shall be dee med to be the ambient noise level for that location”.

TABLE III
ASSUMED MINIMUM AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL, dBA
CITY OF FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 10-102(B)

DISTRICT TIME SOUND LEVEL, dB Leq
RESIDENTIAL 10 PM TO 7 AM 50
RESIDENTIAL 7 PM TO 10 PM 55
RESIDENTIAL 7 AM TO 7 PM 60
COMMERCIAL 10 PM TO 7 AM 60
COMMERCIAL 7 AM TO 10 PM 65
INDUSTRIAL ANYTIME 70
Source: City of Fresno Municipal Code

Section 10‐106 (Prima Facie Violation) States “Any noise or sound exceeding the ambient noise level at the properly line of any person offended thereby, or, if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining living unit, by more than five decibels shall be deemed to prima facie evidence of a violation of Section 8‐305.”

For noise sources that are not transportation related, which usually includes commercial or industrial activities and other stationary noise sources (such as amplified music), it is common to assume that a 3‐5 dB increase in noise levels represents a subs tantial increase in ambient noise levels. This is based on laboratory tests that indicate that a 3 dB increase is the minimum change perceptible to most people, and a 5 dB increase is perceived as a “definitely noticeable change.”

Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology u sed in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and v ery high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standar ds utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. A ppendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.

Construction
The City of Fresno Municipal Code does not explicitly provide guidance on construction noise or vibration. However, Section 10.109 ( E x c e p t i o n s ) o f t h e M u n i c i p al Code states that the noise provisions shall not apply to “Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 7
other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.” Although not specifically stated in the Noise Element or the Municipal Code, it is also a standard requirement of many jurisdictions that all construction equipment be properly maintained and muffled to minimize noise generation at the source.

The City of Fresno does not have regulations that define accept able levels of vibration. One of the most recent references suggesting vibration guidelines is t he California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibra tion Guidance Manual.

The
Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential cr iteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table IV and Table V, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second ( in/sec). The PPV levels reported in Table IV and Table V represent those measured at the potential receiver location.

TABLE IV

GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA

Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec) at Receiver
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans

TABLE V

GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA

Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec) at Receiver
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0 .08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Caltrans

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 8

PROJECT SITE NOISE EXPOSURE
The project site is located along the east side of N. Armstrong Avenue, approximately 375 north of E. Clinton Avenue, in Fresno, California. The project site is exposed traffic noise associated with vehicles on N. Armstrong Avenue. The distance from the closest proposed building façade (and individual patios/balconies) to the (future) centerline of N. A rmstrong Avenue is approximately 65 feet.

Traffic Noise Exposure

Noise exposure from traffic on N. Armstrong Avenue was calculated for existing and future (2046) conditions using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and traffic data obtained from Fresno COG. A description of the noise model, applied data, methodology and findings is provided below.

WJVA utilized the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used for roadway traffic noise calculations. The model is based upon reference e nergy emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks (2 axles) and heavy trucks (3 or more axles), with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly L eq values
for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution o f traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Noise level measurements and conc urrent traffic counts were con ducted by WJVA staff within t h e p r o j e c t s i t e o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 , a l o n g N . A r m s t r o n g A v e n ue. The purpose of the measurement was to evaluate the accuracy of the FHWA Model in describing traffic noise exposure within the project site. The traffic noise measurement sites were each located at a setback distance of approximately 5 feet from the centerline the roadway. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity, for both roadways, was 45 mph (miles p er hour). The project vicinity and noise monitoring site location are provided as Figure 2. Photog raphs showing the N. Armstrong Avenue noise measurement sites are provided as Figure 3.

Noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzer equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphone. The equ ipment complies with the specifications of the American National Standards Institute (AN SI) for Type I (Precision) sound level meters. The meter was calibrated in the field prior to us e with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The microphone was located on a tripod at 5 feet above the ground.

Noise measurements were conducted in terms of the equivalent en ergy sound level (L eq).

Measured Leq values were compared to Leq values calculated (predicted) by the FHWA Model using as inputs the traffic volumes, truck mix and vehicle speed observed during the noise measurements. The results of the comparison are shown in Table VI.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 9
From Table VI it may be determined that the traffic noise level s predicted by the FHWA Model were 1.9 dB higher than those measured for the conditions obser ved at the time of the noise measurements for N. Armstrong Av enue. This overprediction of th e model is likely the result of vehicles traveling at slower speeds than the posted speed limit , in response to the controlled intersection at E. Clinton Avenue. No adjustment to the model was made, and therefore reported noise levels should be considered a worst‐case assessment of project site noise exposure.

TABLE VI

COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED
(FHWA MODEL) NOISE LEVELS

ARMSTRONG APARTMENTS, FRESNO

N. Armstrong Ave.

Measurement Start Time 4:00 p.m.

Observed # Autos/Hr.   480
Observed # Medium Trucks/Hr. 12
Observed # Heavy Trucks/Hr.   0
Observed Speed (MPH) 45
Distance, ft. (from center of roadway) 55
Leq, dBA (Measured) 61.2
Leq, dBA (Predicted) 63.1
Difference between Predicted and Measured Leq, dBA +1.9 Note:  FHWA “soft” site assumed for calculations.

Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AAD T) data for N. Armstrong Avenu e, in the project vicinity was obtained from Fresno COG. Truck percentages and the day/night distribution of traffic were estimated by WJVA, based upon previous studies conducted in the project vicinity since project‐specific data were not available from government source s. A speed limit of 45 mph was assumed for both roadways (as posted in the project vicinity). Table VII summarizes annual average traffic data used to model noise exposure within the project site.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 10

TABLE VII

TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

ARMSTRONG APARTMENTS, FRESNO

N. ARMSTRONG AVE.

Existing 2046
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 3,482 3,453
Day/Night Split (%) 90/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph) 45
% Medium Trucks (% AADT) 2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT) 1
Sources: Fresno COG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Using data from Table VII, the FHWA Model, annual average traffic noise exposure was calculated for the closest proposed residential setbacks to N. Armstrong A venue. Table VIII provides the noise exposure levels for both existing and future (2046) roadway traffic conditions.

TABLE VIII

MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS, dB, Ldn

ARMSTRONG APARTMENTS, FRESNO

Roadway Existing Conditions 2046 Conditions
N. Armstrong Avenue 60.0 60.0
Source: WJV Acoustics
Fresno COG

Reference to Table VIII indicate s that the traffic noise exposu re at the closest proposed residential setbacks to N. Armstrong Avenue would be approximately 60 dB Ldn for both existing conditions and future (2046) conditions, respectively.

Exterior noise standards are to be applied at outdoor activity areas of residential land uses.

Outdoor activity areas for multi‐family residential uses typically include common use outdoor areas (such as pool areas, BBQ and picnic areas, playground areas, etc.) as well as individual unit decks, patios, and balconies. The closest of these are represented by individual unit patios, setback approximately 65 feet from the centerline of N. Armstro ng Avenue. All other applicable areas are located at a greater setback from the roadway. Therefore, all exterior spaces where the exterior noise level standard applies would have a noise exposure level of 60 dB L dn or less. Such
levels are below the City’s applicable 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard. Mitigation measures are not required for project exterior noise compliance.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 11
Interior Noise Exposure:

The City of Fresno interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn. The worst‐case noise exposure within the proposed residential development would be approximately 60 dB Ldn (Existing and 2046 conditions). This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 15 dB (60‐45=20).

A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB L dn interior standard at all proposed units.

Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 12

Construction Noise:

Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the buildout p e r i o d . E x i s t i n g s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s c o u l d b e l o c a t e d a s c l o s e as 75 feet from construction activities. Table IX provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 50, 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.

Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact i f c o n s t r u c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o daytime hours and construction e quipment is adequately maintain ed and muffled. The City of Fresno limits hours of construction to occur only between the h ours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction noise impacts could resul t in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents i f nighttime operations were to occur outside of the allowable construction hours, or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.

TABLE IX

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA

Type of Equipment 50 Ft. 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft.

Concrete Saw 90 84 78 74
Crane 81 75 69 65
Excavator 81 75 69 65
Front End Loader 79 73 67 63
Jackhammer 89 83 77 73
Paver 77 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tools 85 79 73 69
Dozer 82 76 70 66
Rollers 80 74 68 64
Trucks 86 80 72 70
Pumps 80 74 68 64
Scrapers 87 81 75 71
Portable Generators 80 74 68 64
Backhoe 86 80 74 70
Grader 86 80 74 70
Source: FHWA
Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 13
Vibration:

The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, bla sting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling . Generalized vibration levels associated with typical residential construction activities at distances of 50 feet, 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table X. These levels would not be expec ted to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table IV and Table V.

TABLE X

TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION

PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 50´ @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large) 0 .042 0.019 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.001 0.0006 0.0002
Loaded Truck 0.0 27 0.017 0.005
Jackhammer 0.012 0.008 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.097 0.046 0.013
Caisson Drilling 0.042 0.019 0.006
Source: Caltrans

After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at off‐site sensitive uses.

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed 64‐unit multi‐family residential development will comply with all City of Fresno exterior and interior noise level standards, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into final project design.

 Mechanical ventilation or air conditioning must be provided for all units so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes.

The conclusions and recommendations of this acoustical analysis are based upon the best i n f o r m a t i o n k n o w n t o W J V A c o u s t i c s I n c . ( W J V A ) a t t h e t i m e t h e analysis was prepared concerning the proposed lot layout plan, project site elevation, traffic volumes and roadway configurations. Any significant changes in these factors will require a reevaluation of the findings of this report. Additionally, any significant future changes in motor vehicle technology, noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis.

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,

W a l t e r J . V a n G r o n i n g e n
P r e s i d e n t

WJV:wjv

22‐62 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 15
FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN

VICINITY MAP: THEj,y
r VINCENT
COMPANY■JO.
5^f EUs I \ — gT*
r~ _ i
1500 West! Ste. 301tr
) jj”rj i<i i. 3w ®~r) II i i EE| EH
5 • < ! i IHISf- i®H / ii
L KirsJ La ®

STATISTICSS
L £$s Lind i J
. 4tf-tf* ■■•' L *r-=- L ~V-r. ,
t3?' ,c®C 1 ITr
PtE, ■ I - Xkry H e
PLAN
i
HFr]X
iii m i j r~~rn cn
raSSsa
aji
J eP S
A <1 s
, sc I 6
* H ®
pi T
'JFfiE
I—
m3
■ j
C.S£S-\mUL\
.] -■EL
i ii| y. ’• | L ©[HD 'eg
LK GO
' t
4 gotOi? ~fhf
! , Z A 4
(5)
© > IgSSw-'.jBgBaaMi. it»*
?iit m
, rf-O- /J,«(
v«n e:, w o' w O' W r ■**=£,
JiDIMENSIONED
SITE PLAN .

SYMBOLS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 'SSKS
smjss ,H* *"* u-CD:
2: 3tfS~
rsr
“
®- KS-^SI HR J'taSTW* mVS
WiiW™
■§=
NOTESB5J.P
ESSSsahT 4? *
©
t ' ss,
* ns--------
■ -..Y"V--;o as.,.
w :S!S^MKfS-sraSS. • fggBM"»*a'»v‘~ ——
- SB^f|«95awKMa
'■ SS®WEFwsaBB'
■■ |SislSP»F‘ PA1
;A
Es”“~
■”fc i1" S2 ^ i"
c aa*«« alDnatma,L* mvJ,ULV
XXlU n Qfll gm» _______KEYNOTES
POWER PlTI.F, I.OCATKA.' (T)
B»ar,,rKM cd
I HI IIVDUAN I I (l(-A'l KIM
saW
OVERHAhG.
!IT.
0'^Sl- ©~~£r‘ s^cs-^asse&ussSE SJV-S'.S" (MIMMUW).
©(a) stan&a^Tarkinc stall
©TYPICAL

PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS
22‐58 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23 FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE VICINITY

AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATION

I
I
- .y w a.
------- - •
- ; - 2
■R f
■*i.
s
*»-•
■
«
*Sir'.rt
11 g* ■i £if "q
1 m
I k ! r
iff
I • I
fL-
: ;i
I*i m .1
i-gi<ftea -C
k Iit
!Ljl *^ 1
I f
TV' ij g!.ri-
tft ' .V*--
T5T i
(Sfr
- •. |t1
\
Traffic Noise Measureme"rit Loc ation
%ffi VV>
’X
'll*
*£ i' *
%Vlf^ « - ^e)
■
if* >
J
fc 5 ? 1-k: ^
■ lmsgt ’t.-'
I! j®**._
Google Earth
■
:
4 -^^I^kciri d ifi ii et EbLij

22‐58 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23

FIGURE 3: N. ARMSTRONG AVENUE NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE

i
■
hi
1 ’ami *..*/
I | ■
: V
f
.
rift. . 'jjm
^i
1 Mr
>-?•-•sm ■ -i -
jy t
<*ndaem i ■
r.vri -1
11 _\ ■
■i
LI >it I i.
5 i-
VZs-1
ifflEs
MKms
5:

Sef
.v ■-
i
/ -- -.-i•*&£//£
■• "J1- -”**—-
sMfites5%£«fc..gif • '
*» If
* - r-.f-, to?:
n M. &z
im-'asi
^35 ; -' '
H2
-■
Sffiais?J2i ;.. ...¥bff>
4?iS
T
\:*21mm WS& mmra?g B :/• • - '•mm*r;ifr>- m..... m sw-rrW 'M.

Sitk mr:
e&> m&
■i
, A1"1'
Mm . .<K .5*a15W.
if' FV.j- j
».-.

V
ii
R» ■
;,.yj » xPifm V1
swimm . iiin$K SBa&s
jfj
&#> Tv?.
1SB. $
mH!S«3 '« '! • .S Hfe ' iW M 3■1VV MM »,t'.
si :
.• !1 ’ 'Lise a a®-.•■« I'M

22‐58 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23

APPENDIX A

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY

AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: T h e c o m p o s i t e o f n o i s e f r o m a l l s o u r c e s n e a r a n d f a r . I n t h i s c o n t e x t , t h e a m b i e n t n o i s e l e v e l c o n s t i t u t e s t h e n o r m a l o r existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL: C o m m u n i t y N o i s e E q u i v a l e n t L e v e l . T h e a v e r a g e e q u i v a l e n t sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten de cibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 time s the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of th e sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/L
dn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

L
eq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample perio d.

Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

L
max: The maximum noise level rec orded during a noise event.

Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sa mple interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L 10 e q u a l s t h e l e v e l exceeded 10 percent of the time.

22‐58 (Armstrong Apartments, Fresno) 2‐21‐23

A-2

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY

NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels o f noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between i ndoor and outdoor environments o r b e t w e e n t w o r o o m s t h a t i s t h e n u m e r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e , i n decibels, of the average sound pr essure levels in those areas o r rooms. A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure pl us the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. T he level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an a i r c r a f t o v e r f l i g h t , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o a d u r a t i o n o f o n e s e c o n d.

More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound l evel meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS

SUBJECTIVE

DESCRIPTION SOUND LEVELNOISE SOURCE
120 dB AMPLIFIED ROCK TM ROLL
DEAFENINGJET TAKEOFF @ 200 FT
100 dB

VERY LOUDBUSY URBAN STREET
80 dB
LOUDFREEWAY TRAFFIC @ 50 FT
CONVERSATION @ 6 FT 60 dB

MODERATETYPICAL OFFICE INTERIOR
40 dBSOFT RADIO MUSIC

FAINTRESIDENTIAL INTERIOR
20 dBWHISPER @ 6 FT

VERY FAINTHUMAN BREATHING
0 dB

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
JUNE 2023
CITY OF FRESNO – General Plan Amendment-Rezone No. P22-04389/Development Permit No. P22-02376 | 177

6.4 Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., on November 21, 2022.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022
Armstrong Apartments
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

Located on the Northeast Quadrant of Armstrong
Avenue and Clinton Avenue
In the City of Fresno, California
Prepared for:

Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Project No. 004-180
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com

JIR TRAFFIC
Whli ENGINEERING, INC.

Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\004 Fresno\004-180 Armstrong Apartments VMT\Letter\R11212022 Armstrong Apartments VMT Letter.docx

Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

For the Armstrong Apartments Project located on the Northeast Quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Clinton Avenue

In the City of Fresno, CA

November 21, 2022

This Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.

Prepared by:

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

President

JLB TRAFFIC
X9^0FESS/0.
<e v
<vCo /Co
o A? mc£ 3DNo.T 2328
★ \ Exp:06/30/23 / +
NN^ CF CAL'*

JIB TRAFFIC
If h ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

Table of Contents
Project Description ...............................................................................................................................1 Project Trip Generation .........................................................................................................................1 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 1 VMT Results ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Participants ................................................................................................................................. 5 References ............................................................................................................................................6

List of Tables
Table I: Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................ 1 Table II: VMT Results ................................................................................................................................................ 4

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool Output

JIR TRAFFIC
Vhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

Project Description
This report describes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Armstrong Apartments (Project) located on the northeast quadrant of Armstrong Avenue and Clinton Avenue in the City of Fresno. The project proposes to develop a 4.20 net acre site with 64 multi- family residential units. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project will undergo a General Plan Amendment through the City of Fresno top modify the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential.

Project Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Multi-Family Housing. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately of 431 daily trips, 26 AM peak hour trips and 33 PM peak hour trips.

Table I: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise)
(220) 64 d.u. 6.74 431 0.40 24 76 6 20 26 0.51 63 37 21 12 33 Total Project Trips 431 6 20 26 21 12 33
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
VMT Analysis
Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant California Environmental Quality Act (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 our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

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

JIR TRAFFICVhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted guidelines or thresholds for VMT pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (TA) published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified development projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT Analysis. These criteria may be size, location, proximity to transit, of trip making potential. In general development projects that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning and that that meet one or more of the following criteria can be screened out from a quantitative VMT analysis.

1. Project Located in a Transit Priority Area/High Quality Transit Corridor (within 0.5 miles of a transit stop).

2. Project is Local-serving Retail of less than 50,000 square feet.

3. Project is a Low Trip Generator (Less than 500 average daily trips)

4. Project has a High Level of Affordable Housing Units

5. Project is an institutional/Government and Public Service Uses

6. Project is located in a Low VMT Zone
This screening tool is consistent with the OPR December 2018 Guidance referenced above. The screening tool includes an analysis of those portions of the City that satisfy the standard of reducing VMT by 13% from existing per capita and per employee VMT averages within the relevant region. The relevant region adopted by the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds is Fresno County.

However, the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that "If a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or a Zone Change (ZC), none of the screening criteria may apply". Since this particular Project includes a General Plan Amendment, it does not meet the screening criteria. As such, a quantitative VMT analysis is required, and such was prepared utilizing the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool.

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The Fresno VMT Thresholds document includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans.

JIR TRAFFIC
Vhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.

VMT Results
VMT is simply the product of a number of trips and those trips’ lengths. The first step in a VMT analysis is to establish the baseline average VMT, which requires the definition of a region. The CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for the City of Fresno provide that the Fresno County average VMT per Capita (appropriate for residential land uses) and Employee (appropriate for office/commercial non-retail land uses) are 16.1 and 25.6, respectively. The City’s threshold targets a 13% reduction in VMT for residential and office/commercial non-retail land uses and a net zero (0) increase in regional VMT for commercial retail land uses.

The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional averages modeled by Fresno COG's ABM. For residential and non-residential (except retail) development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by 13% or more are less than significant. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in Regional VMT compared to the existing Regional VMT. Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a development project are determined using the COG ABM, which is a tour-based model.

For mixed use projects, the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds state that the VMT can be estimated based on each component of the project, independently, after taking credit for internal trip capture. It also confirms that mixed use projects must use the Fresno COG’s Activity Based Model. The VMT per capita (for the residential component) and the total VMT (for the retail component) is then compared against the relevant threshold.

The target VMT for residential and commercial non-retail land uses are (16.1 X (1-.13) = 14.0) 14.0 VMT per capita and (25.6 X (1-.13) = 22.3) 22.3 VMT per employee, respectively. In addition, for retail land uses the City’s threshold targets a net zero (0) increase in regional VMT for retail land uses (City of Fresno, 2020).

The Project’s dwelling units and the Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) were entered into the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool to conduct a Project-specific VMT analysis. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) was also utilized to output the VMT per capita of this Project and the output was determined to be the same as the TAZ output. Based on the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool results, the Project is expected to yield an average of 9.5 VMT per capita which is within the City of Fresno’s VMT threshold of 14.0 VMT per capita for residential land uses. Therefore, there are no significant impacts to VMT associated with this Project.

Appendix A presents the Project VMT output from the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool.

JIR TRAFFIC
Vhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

Conclusion
As can be seen in Table II below, the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool output an average of 9.5 VMT per capita. This VMT is within the City of Fresno's Threshold of 14.0 VMT per capita for residential land uses. In conclusion, there are no significant impacts to VMT associated with this Project pursuant to the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines.

Table II: VMT Results
Project Components Fresno COG VMT Calculation
Tool Results1
City of Fresno Residential
Threshold2 Significant VMT Impact?
Multi-Family Residential 9.5 14.0 No
Note: 1 = VMT Results per Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool (Version 1.38) 2 = VMT Threshold per CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for the City of Fresno All VMT Outputs are measures as VMT per Employee
• Based on the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool, the Project’s VMT is projected to be 9.5 VMT per capita.
• The City of Fresno VMT Threshold for residential land uses is 14.0 VMT per capita. • As a result, there are no impacts to VMT associated with this Project.

JIR TRAFFICVhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide

Persons Consulted:

Bonique Emerson Precision Engineering, Inc.

JIR TRAFFIC
Vhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991

Armstrong Apartments - City of Fresno
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
November 21, 2022

References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. "Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Health and Equity". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2020. "Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2021. "California Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.

City of Fresno. 2014. "Fresno General Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.

City of Fresno. 2016. "Active Transportation Plan". Fresno: City of Fresno.

City of Fresno. 2020. "CEQA Guidelines For Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds". Fresno: City of Fresno, Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Ebook. Sacramento: State of California.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. "Trip Generation Manual: 11th Edition". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Vol. 1-3.

JIR TRAFFIC
Vhli ENGINEERING, INC.

www.JLBtraffic.com

[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103

Fresno, CA 93704 App | A
(559) 570-8991
Appendix A: Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool Output
JIB TRAFFIC™ mm ENGINEERING, INC.

Tool Version: Report Date: 11/17/2022
Name:

Jurisdiction
TAZ ID
Single‐family: 0 DU Multi ‐family: 64 DU
Total: 64 DU Percent Affordable: 0%
Non‐Residential Office: 0 EMP Others: TSF
Included
in the project TDM Quantification
% VMT/Capita
Reduction
% VMT/Employment
Reduction
No N/A
No N/A

9.5 County VMT / Capita: 16.1
Significant Impact: No
Project TDM measures (VMT reduction strategies)
Fresno COG Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Tool Summary Report Version 1.38
Project Information
Armstrong Apartments
Fresno
1024
Project Land Use
Residential
TDM Strategy
Implement Project Specific Vanpool Program
Implement Project Specific Carpool Program
Project VMT Results
Residential
Project's VMT/Capita (9.5) is less than County VMT/Capita (14.0 using 13% as threshold) Project VMT per Capita:

Project VMT per Capita with TDM
Measures:

9.5 Significant Impact with
TDM measures: No

15.2 9.5 9.5

13.1 16.1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
TAZ Project Project + TDM
VMT per Capita
County Average
€r
Fresno Council of Governments
I

Fresno City CouncilAugust 10, 2023

Fresno City Council
August 10, 2023