Exhibit H
CITY OF FRESNO
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Filed with the
FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ANNEXATION
APPLICATION NO. P23-03757 AND PRE-ZONE
APPLICATION NO. P23-03758
APPLICANT:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION:
Bounded by North Bryan Avenue to the west and the Fresno City limits boundary to the north, south, and east for
properties in the County of Fresno, California including properties the north and south sides of West Ashlan Avenue, east side of North Bryan Avenue, east and west sides of North Hayes Avenue, and north and south sides of West
Hampton Way. (See Exhibit A - Vicinity Map)
APNs: See Exhibit A
Site Latitude: 36° 47' 31.2" N & Site Longitude: 119° 53'
52.8" W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 13S, Range 19E, Sections 15, 16, 21 and 22
The full Initial Study and the Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report ( PEIR) are on file in the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 3 rd Floor, Room 3043, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Annexation Application No. P23 -03757 proposes to initiate annexation proceedings for the Ashlan - Hayes Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Reorganization proposing incorporation of approximately 141 acres of property within the City of Fresno; and, detachment from the Kings River Conservation District and North Central Fire Protection District.
Pre-zone Application No. P23-03758 proposes to pre-zone: approximately 99.31 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RS-5/ANX (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district; approximately 18.65 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RS -1/ANX (Single-Family Residential, L ow Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay ) zone district; and, approximately 14.13 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB (Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RM -2/ANX ( Multi-Family Residential, Urban Neighborhood/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district.
The annexation area is primarily developed with rural residential land (approximately 97%) with the remaining land as vacant land (approximately 3%). The project does not propose any new development of the properties within the proposed annexation boundary.
The City of Fresno has prepared an Initial Study of the above-described project and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study is tiered from the PEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2019050005 pr epared for the Fresno General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15152 and incorporates the PEIR by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150.
Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 21093 and 21094 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15070 to 15075, 15150, and 15152, this project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached Appendix G/ Initial Study Checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment, which was not previously examined in the PEIR. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to PRC § 21157.6(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15151 and 15179(b), the Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the PEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the PEIR was certified as complete, has become available.
The completed Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist, its associated narrative, technical studies and mitigation measures reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analyses conducted to examine the interrelationship betwe en the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, Initial Study narrative, and any attachments the reto, combine to form a record indicating that an Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.
All new development activity and many non -physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.
With mitigation imposed under the PEIR, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the PEIR. The Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the PEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not ha ve been known at the time that the PEIR was certified as complete has become available.
Based upon the evaluation guided by the Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist, it was determined that there are project specific foreseeable impacts which require project level mitigation measures.
The Initial Study has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects, which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in § 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The finding is, therefore, made that the propos ed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Public notice has been provided regarding staff’s finding in the manner prescribed by § 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines and by § 21092 of the PRC Code (CEQA provisions).
Additional information on the proposed project, including the PEIR, proposed environmental finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study may be obtained from the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor, Room 3043, Fresno, California 93721 3604. Please contact Rob Holt at (559) 621 -8056 or via email a t [email protected] for more information.
ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments must be in writing and must state (1) the commentor’s name and address; (2) the commentor’s interest in, or relationship to, the project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at any time between the publication date of this notice and close of business on December 1, 2023 (make sure this date is 20 days from the next business day). Please direct comments to Rob Holt, Supervising Planner , City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, California, 93721 -3604; or by email
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE: November 10, 2023
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
CITY OF FRESNO
PLANING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Vicinity Map
Exhibit A – Vicinity Map
LEGEND
Subject Property
W ASHLAN AVE
N HAYES AVE
N BRYAN AVE
W HAMPTON WAY
1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form for:
Environmental Application No. P23-03757/P23-03758
1. Project title:
Environmental Application No. P23-03757/P23-03758
(Annexation Application No. P23-03757 and Pre-zone Application No. P23-03758)
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
3. Contact person and phone number:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8056
4. Project location:
Fresno County properties on the north and south side of West Ashlan Avenue between North Bryan and North Polk Avenues.
(APN: Multiple, See Figure A below for project boundary) Figure A
2 5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
6. General & Community plan land use designation:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential (approx. 99.31 acres), Low Density Residential (approx. 18.65 acres), Urban Neighborhood Residential (approx. 14.13 acres)
Community Plan: West Area Community Plan
7. Zoning:
Current: Fresno County RR/NB (Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) Proposed: City of Fresno RS -5/ANX (approx. 99.31 acres), RS-1/ANX (approx. 18.65 acres), RM-2/ANX (approx. 14.13 acres)
8. Description of project:
N HAYES AVE
W ASHLAN AVE
N BRYAN AVE
^Tinr
W Holland Ave
W Holland Ave W Holland Ave W Holland Ave
I 11 r I ',“ ‘,-i W Rrhrn Avr £
: _ inn ?
V Oavley Ave !g mi .
W Oakley Ave «
— * ill
E
r1
W Willti Aye I P
ii3 " = IV Modify A.c — i
—i
W Holland Avr
* - ' r.uLq
W Swift Ave
w Holland Avei P's'C-
i? ii :r;:rmTirai iT:.Ti{ i
W «*hert Aye
V«r tf iiX^n r I : i
CllG O D D;Q '□
_/• jor * ’ • j a nip | qp ! Ml MW
W Wlltl* Ava
IMj0:d,Min!O Dto
ia / j. i i 0 ! I
J W SunII Ave
*
i
—1
1 l r*D ^ 1IlL — 11—i 1| 1
1 jfclti i
Hampton ay
W ftrrtn Aye
W Saginaw Way
________
3 Annexation Application No. P23-03757 and Pre-zone Application No. P23-03758 were filed by the City of Fresno.
Annexation Application No. P23-03757 proposes to initiate annexation proceedings for the Ashlan-Hayes Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Reorganization proposing incorporation of approximately 141 acres of property within the City of Fresno; and, detachment from the Kings River Conservation District and North Central Fire Protection District.
Pre-zone Application No. P23-03758 proposes to pre-zone: approximately 99.31 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RS-5/ANX (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay ) zone district; approximately 18.65 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RS-1/ANX (Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district; and, approximately 14.13 acres of property from the Fresno County RR/NB (Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district to the City of Fresno RM -2/ANX (Multi-Family Residential, Urban Neighborhood/A nnexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay) zone district.
The annexation area is primarily developed with rural residential land (approximately 97%) with the remaining land as vacant land (approximately 3%). The project does not propose any new development of the properties within the proposed annexation boundary.
4 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Medium Density
Residential /
Commercial -
Community
RS-5/UGM/cz+CC/UGM/cz
(Single-Family Residential,
Medium Density/Urban Growth
Management/conditions of
zoning + Commercial –
Community/Urban Growth
Management/conditions of
zoning
Single-Family
Residential
neighborhoods
East
Urban
Neighborhood
Residential /
Medium Density
Residential
RM-2/UGM + RS-5/UGM (Multi-
Family Residential, Urban
Neighborhood/Urban Growth
Management + Single-Family
Residential, Medium
Density/Urban Growth
Management)
Rural Residential
and Vacant Land
South
Urban
Neighborhood
Residential /
Medium Density
Residential
RM-2/ANX/UGM + RS-
5/ANX/UGM (Multi-Family
Residential, Urban
Neighborhood/Annexed Rural
Residential Transitional
Overlay/Urban Growth
Management + Single-Family
Residential, Medium Density/
Annexed Rural Residential
Transitional Overlay/Urban
Growth Management)
Rural Residential
and Vacant Land
West Low Density
Residential
Fresno County RR (Rural
Residential) Rural Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno Department of Public Works
City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
City of Fresno Fire Department
County of Fresno Department of Community Health
County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning
5 Central Unified School District
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Fresno Irrigation District
Pacific, Gas and Electric
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, before public distribution of the document, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or loc al historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1 -2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Ranch eria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on June 20, 2023. The 30-day comment period ended on July 20, 2023. Neither tribe requested consultation.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
6 involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
7 imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
_________________________________________11/10/2023__________________ Rob Holt, Supervising Planner Date
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT ASSESSED IN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2019050005 PREPARED FOR THE APPROVED FRESNO GENERAL PLAN (GP PEIR):
1. For purposes of this Initial S tudy, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.
c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant . For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply t o projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive recept ors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
8 4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significa nt Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).
6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursu ant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non -urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. The City’s approved General Plan identifies six locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points from which views should be maintained. Scenic vistas within the Planning Area could provide distant views of features such as the San Jo aquin River to the north and the foothills
10 of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east.
The proposed project site is within an area just outside Fresno City limits that has approximately 97% of the parcels developed as rural residential land with the remaining land being vacant. The proposed project would include annexation of approximately 141 acres of property from Fresno County and incorporated into the Fresno City limits and the pre -zone of all properties within the annexation boundary consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations. The project site is not located within any of the scenic vista points identified in the General Plan .
Furthermore, there is no construction or development proposed for the project which would not significantly affect or block a potentially scenic vista in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Mapping System 1, there are no eligible or officially -designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Fresno .
However, Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of State Route 180, located approximately 7 miles east of the City, and a portion of State Route 168, located approximately 5 miles east of City. The nearest officially-designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the City within the county of Madera. Since there are no eligible or officially -designated State Scenic Highways within or in close proximity to the project site , implementation of the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, s ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is currently primarily rural residential areas (approximately 97%) and vacant land (approximately 3%) . The proposed project does not propose any construction or development. Thus, the proposed project would not change the visual characteristics of the project site. Because the characteristics of the project site would not change, the project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
1 California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways. Available online at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways (accessed June 19, 2023)
11 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project site is located in an urbanized area subject to preexisting exterior lighting from surrounding developments and existing street lighting. All future streetlights will be shielded so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto public right-of-way or adjoining properties and shall meet the most recently adopted criteria of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for “Cut Off” or “Ful l Cut Off” luminaries, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-2015.B.6. The proposed project would not introduce new sources of light and glare to the area as there is no proposed construction or development. Therefore, potential light and glare fro m the proposed project would result with no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model t o use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Departm ent of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted b y the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito -
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
X
12 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Fresno. The State of California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland Finder classifies approximately 27 acres of the subject area as “Farmland of Local Importance,” approximately 1.1 acres of the subject area as “Unique Farmland,” and approximately
13 20 acres of the subject area as “Farmland of Statewide Importance.”
The City of Fresno has not yet adopted a Farmland Preservation Program as described in the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Mitigation Measure (MM) AG -1.1. Therefore, the final section of MM AG -1.1 applies to this Project, and this P roject will be required to mitigate on an individual basis as outlined below.
The subject area is designated and zoned for residential development that would have a non-agricultural use. However, because the DOC classifies portions of the land as being Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, any future development of the subject area will be required to provide in-kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of approximately 28.1 acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non-agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit. The land selected for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of Conservation.
(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant-
programs/mitigation/Documents/Final%20HSR%20Documents/2017%20ALMP%20 model%20ACE.docx)
With implementation of Project Specific MM AG-1.1 through the requirement of an agricultural conservation easement as specified above, impacts of the Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure AG-1.1
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever comes first, for any future projects requiring new construction or development, the Developer shall complete the following measure to mitigate the loss of agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 for the applicable net acreage before conversion (the net acreage calculation shall exclude existing roads and areas already developed with structures, and a plot plan shall be submitted to substantiate the net acreage calculation, along with written evidence of compliance).
• Mitigation land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and/or Unique Farmland and be of similar agricultural quality or higher, as established by the California Department of Conservation. Completion of the selected measure can occur on qualifying land within Fresno County.
14 The Developer shall provide in -kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of approximately 28.1 acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non- agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the subject area. The land selected for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of Conservation.
(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant-
programs/mitigation/Documents/Final%20HSR%20Documents/2017%20ALMP% 20model%20ACE.docx)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The subject area is designated with Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Urban Neighborhood Residential planned land uses in the General Plan. The subject area is located in the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification) zone district and proposes to be located in the City of Fresno RS-1 (Single-Family Residential, Low Density), RS-5 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density ), and RM -2 ( Multi-Family Residential, Urban Neighborhood) zone districts which allow for single-family and multi-family uses. The Project does not propose any new development or construction. None of the properties in the subject area are subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and the proposed project would have no impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The project site is located within an existing urban area and is proposed to be located within the RS-1, RS-5, and RM-2 zoning districts in the City of Fresno. The proposed project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to the discussion for c) above . The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
15 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to the discussion for a) and c) above. The project site is located within an existing urban environment and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses or forest land to non -forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
Mitigation Measure
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the agriculture and forestry resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program dated November 10, 2023.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non -attainment area.
The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ( SJVAB) into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 75 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.
To assure the SJVAB’s continued attainment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) respirable particulate matter ( PM10) standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM 10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard to address the USEPA federal annual PM 2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012.
The SJVAPCD has established project construction and operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants . For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD attainment plans, the pollutants emitted from project operation should not exceed the SJVAPCD daily threshold s, cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the attainment plans projection. Because the proposed project does not include any proposed development or construction , emissions associated with the construction or operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD
17 thresholds of significance.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds . Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans and the impact would be no impact.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of construction- or operational- related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.
As discussed above, the proposed project does not propose any development or construction, thus the construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM 10, or PM 2.5 emissions for no new development or construction . Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment, and impacts would be no impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, because the proposed project does not propose new development or construction, project construction emissions would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds and would not be a significant source of long-term operational emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of the proposed project, and the impact would be no impact.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. There would be no new odors. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the subject area is not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints because substantial odor-generating sources are not proposed, such as land uses including agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing
18 uses. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during project construction or operation, and this impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
19 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a c andidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The subject area is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed with primarily rural residential and vacant lands. Due to the urban location and that no new development or construction is proposed , the subject area does not provide suitable habitat for special -status animal species. Common wildlife species that are adapted to urban environments are expected to continue to use the s ubject area and vicinity after any future development or redevelopment. The subject area is not occupied by, or suited for, any special -status species. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects of special -status plants or wildlife, and the impact would be no impact.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
20 natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project does not include any new construction or development. Future development that occurs in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, its tributaries, any lakes or streams, and/or open grasslands with seasonal wetlands, may result in a significant impact to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur within the subject area, or within the vicinity of the subject area. The project site consists primarily of developed areas with a few vacant properties. As a result, the impact would be no impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The proposed project does not include any new construction or development. Future development that occurs in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River corridor may result in significant impacts to protected wetlands. No aquatic resources occur within the subject area , or within the vicinity of the subject area . The subject area consists primarily of developed areas and a few vacant properties. As a result, the impact would be no impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project does not include any new construction or development. Open space areas, undeveloped land, and agricultural land are mainly located along the boundaries of the City, particularly near the northern boundary along the San Joaquin River corridor. The San Joaquin River corridor functions as a wildlife movement corridor for a number of terrestrial and aquatic mammals and birds. The San Joaquin River corridor facilitates movement of wildlife species from the City to the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and open agricultural land to the west.
The subject area and surrounding area are primarily developed with a few vacant properties, and t here are not known native or migratory wildlife species using the subject area. As a result, the impact would be no impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction and would not conflict with any of the existing ordinances. As a result, the
21 impact would be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)2 was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. This HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The subject area is not located within the covered area of any HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E HCP and the proposed project and would have no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
2 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2007. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
22 A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria:
1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built-environment resources and archaeological sites.
The proposed project does not propose any new development and construction and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and the proposed project would have no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2).
The proposed project does not propose any new development and construction and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and the proposed project would have no impact.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. If human remains are identified during project construction, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code shall apply, as appropriate.
The proposed project does not propose any new development and construction and would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the proposed project would have no impact.
23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The proposed project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which includes provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption.
The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The 2014 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) provided a comprehensive assessment of the benefits of General Plan and Development Code policies along with existing plans, programs, and initiatives that reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the GHG Plan in cludes an emission reduction target for demonstrating consistency with State GHG reduction targets. The analysis prepared
24 to quantify GHG emissions and emission reductions provides the basis for the GHG Plan targets and for CEQA significance findings of implementing the approved General Plan and the GHG Plan.
The 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update was prepared to re -evaluate the City’s existing GHG reduction targets and strategies. The GHG Plan Update provides new goals and supporting measures to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies while ensuring it encourages economic growth and keeps the city economically competitive while achieving GHG reductions an d maintaining the “CEQA Qualified Plan” status.3
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct state and local plans for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
3 City of Fresno. 2021. Appendix G-Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. Available online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/03/Link4AppendixGGHGRPUpdate.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
25 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
26 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e. , in the last 11,000 years).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The subject area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the project vicinity.
The nearest active fault is the Great Valley Fault Zone, approximately 35 miles southwest of the subject area. The San Andreas Fault is approximately 75 miles southwest of the subject area. The Clovis Fault is the closest potentially active fault to the subject area and is located approximately 10 miles east of the subject area.
Considering the proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, potential impacts related to fault ruptures would be no impact.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The City of Fresno is located in an area with historically low to moderate level of seismicity. However, strong ground shaking could occur within the project site during seismic events and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the nearby Great Valley Fault Zone or the Nunez Fault, or other associated faults, could affect the project site through strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, resulting in impacts that would be no impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
The predominant soils within the City of Fresno consist of varying combinations of loose/very soft to very dense/hard silts, clays, sands, and gravels. Groundwater has been encountered near the ground surface in close proximity to water ‐filled features such as canals, ditches, ponds, and lakes. Based on these characteristics, the potential for soil liquefaction within the City ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. In addition to liquefaction, the City could be susceptible to induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils or lateral spread during seismic shaking events. Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, seismic settlement and/or lateral spread are not anticipated to represent a substantial hazard within the City during seismic events.
27 Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region , potential for seismic related ground failure is low in Fresno.4 The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, thus potential impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be no impact.
iv. Landslides?
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. The City of Fresno is located within an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the City. However, there is the potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, creeks, or drainage basins such as the San Joaquin River bluff and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the City. The subject area is located in a relatively flat area, and it is not in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River bluff or any unlined basins or canals. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be no impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, thus no grading or earthmoving will occur as a result of the project. This impact would be no impact.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As described in discussion a) and b) in this section , the proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The surface and near ‐surface soils observed throughout the City consist of varying combinations of clays, silts, sands, gravels, and cobbles. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. The clayey soils, which consist of very fine
4 City of Fresno. 2020. General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - Geology and Soils. Available online at: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/03/Fresno-GP-Public-Review-Draft- Program-EIR.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
28 particles, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. The subject area contains Exeter sandy loam, San Joaquin sandy loam, and San Joaquin loam 5, all soils with relatively low clay content and low expansion potential. The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, thus resulting in no impact.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The subject area would eventually be served by a wastewater conveyance system maintained by the Wastewater Management Division (WMD) of the City of Fresno.
Wastewater from the City’s collection system is treated at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction and would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the use o f septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As described in discussion a), b), c), d), and e) in this section , the proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
5 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 19, 2023)
29 DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse greenhouse gas emission impact if the project would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance -based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
The City of Fresno 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan) meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the proposed project would be consi stent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update.
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, or conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The impact would be no impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As shown in discussion a) above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies from the GHG Reduction Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose
30 of reducing GHG emissions. The impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See discussion a) above. The proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport of hazardous materials.
Therefore, the project would not result in significant hazards to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials. The impact would be no impact.
32 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
See discussion a) and b) above. The proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport or release of hazardous materials. Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve activities that would result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances to an existing or proposed school, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact in the use or emission of hazardous materials that would adversely affect a school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
According to the DTSC EnviroStor database, 6 the subject area does not include any properties that are located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the subject area does not include any properties that are included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 7 As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated, and there would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 8.65 miles east of the subject area, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 5.30 miles south of the subject area, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 3.10 miles north of the subject area. The nearest medical center helipads (HP) include Saint Agnes Medical Center , located approximately 7.4 miles east of the subject area and Fresno Community Regional Health Center, located approximately 6.6 miles southeast of the subject area . Additionally, none of the properties within the subject area are located or designated within any airport influence area within the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Pla n. Due to the distance between the project site and local airports and helipads, o perations at
6 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. EnviroStor. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno (accessed June 20, 2023) 7 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available online at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ (accessed June 20, 2023)
33 these locations are not expected to pose a safety hazard for people in the subject area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to airport -related hazards, and the potential impact would be no impact.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war -caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The City's full ‐time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up ‐to‐date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in eme rgency response operations. The City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOC. The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways that would block the circulation of emergency response services or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the EOC . Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency evacuation plans in the City, and this impact would be no impact.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).8 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and t he impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
8 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Kune. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
34 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:
X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
35 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be no impact.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The nearest water mains to the intersection of West Ashlan and North Bryan/North Hayes Avenues provided are:
1. 14-inch water main located in West Ashlan Avenue.
2. 14-inch water main located in North Bryan Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
3. 16-inch water main located in North Hayes Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
36 4. 8-inch water main located in West Willis Avenue (southeast of the subject area).
5. 8-inch water main located in North Sandrini Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
Currently, there is only one property being served by the City on Ashlan between Hayes and Polk Avenues at 5757 West Ashlan Avenue, where every other property is being served by a private water well. Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Fresno through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Water and Wastewater Management Divisions. As discussed below in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems , the City receives all of its water supply from grou ndwater. The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and distribution systems shall be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in Fresno’s current Urban Water Management Plan ( UWMP)9 is to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies. Through careful planning, Fresno has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplies and surface water treatment facilities, intentional rec harge, and conservation, thereby reducing groundwater pumping. The City continually monitors impacts of land use changes and development project proposals on water supply facilities by assigning fixed demand allocations to each parcel by land use as currently zoned or proposed to be rezoned.
The City’s groundwater aquifer has been documented by the State Department of Water Resources (Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016) to be critically over-drafted and has been designated a high-priority basin for corrective action through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
The City of Fresno is actively addressing these issues through citywide metering and updating water use targets and the water shortage contingency plan in the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (City of Fresno, 2020). The City has adopted the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adeq uately meet existing and future needs of the metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. City water wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment, and distribution systems have been ex panded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands and respond to groundwater quality changes.
9 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan - Final. Available online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/07/Fresno-2020- UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
37 In response to the need for a comprehensive long-range water supply and distribution strategy, the Fresno General Plan recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City 2020 UWMP. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, ad equate, an d dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno- Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft, and provide a p lan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities.
The 2020 City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals, the city is implementing strategies including:
• Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of Fresno - Yosemite International Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fre sno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;
• Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigation District for treatment at the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and construct a new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and
• Recycle wastewater at the Fresno -Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC-6-d to prepare, adopt a nd implement a City of Fresno Recycled W ater Master Plan.
The use of groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily as has historically been the case. The 2020 UWMP shows that groundwater pumped by the City has decreased from approximately 148,006 AF/year in 2008 to approximately 55,000 AF/year in 2020. The projected total estimated groundwater yield for 2045 is approximately 159,820 AF/year, inclusive of intentional recharge. In order to meet future demand projections, the City is planning to rely on expanding their delivery and treatment of surface water supplies and groundwater recharge activities.
The project does not propose any development or construction. Upon annexation, there is not a requirement for newly annexed properties to connect to City water as
38 long as the property has a functioning well. Upon annexation, the domestic water must be supplied by the City when the water main becomes available. For larger lots (2 acres or more) zoned for agricultural purposes, the City may allow the property owners to retain a well exclusively to be used for irrigation. Until a water or sewer main becomes available to the property owner, the property owner would be allowed to continue to improve and replace, as needed, their well and septic systems.
There are no City or County ordinances regarding mandatory connection to the City’s water distribution system. However, upon annexation, the Department of Public Utilities typically mandates the following via the Extraterritorial Agreement and/or Annexation Agreement:
1. Upon annexation, the domestic water must be supplied by the City when the water main becomes available.
2. For larger lots (2 acres or more) zoned for agricultural purposes, the City may allow the property owner(s) to retain a well exclusively to be used for irrigation.
In that case, the property owner will be required to install a meter on their well and pay a recharge rate as dictated by the Master Fee Schedule. The property owner will also have to install a backflow prevention device, which has its own associated fee and requires yearly checks by the City of Fresno Water Division.
Should the land use change to something other than agricultural, the City would revisit this requirement.
3. In all other cases where the property is not zoned for agricultural purposes, the well must be properly destroyed.
4. Property owners may protest the terms of the Annexation Agreement to the Director of Public Utilities.
The properties included in this annexation area are within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Growth Area 1 (GA1). As such, pursuant to the current Conveyance Agreement with the Fresno Irrigation District (FID), these properties have surface water entitlements that would be transferred to the City upon annexation. In general, the City will be able to provide water services to the properties included in this annexation, subject to certain development requirements. However, as there are no developments (or estimated water needs) for the subject properties, the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities cannot affirm the exact Water Service or Water Supply Requirements. In addition to the installation of water mains and services with meters, typical requirements for large new developments include:
1. Two independent sources of water, meeting Federal and State Drinking Water Act Standards, are required to serve the applicable properties including any subsequent phases thereof. The two -source requirement may be accomplished through any combination of water main extensions, construction of supply wells,
39 or other acceptable sources of water supply approved by the Department of Public Utilities Director or designee.
2. Destroy any existing on-site well(s) in compliance with the State of California Well Standards, Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, or current revisions, issued by the California Department of Water Resources, Fresno County standards, and City of Fresno standards. The applicant shall comply with the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 6-518, as may be amended.
The project will not conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management or impede sustainable groundwater management plans.
The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, therefore potential impacts related to erosion and saltation on - and off-site would be no impact.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amoun t of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
As stated in c) i . above, the proposed project does not propose any new development or construction, therefore impacts on grading patterns and flooding on and off of the construction site would be no impact.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Please refer to discussions a) and c) i and ii in this section. The proposed project would not propose any new development or construction. The impact would be no impact.
40 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 regulations (40CFR60), and the floodplain ordinance of the City of Fresno require that placement and flood provision structures within a floodplain not result in a cumulative change in the floodplain water surface that exceeds one foot. In addition, the regulations under 40CFR60 do not allow placement of structures within a regulatory floodway unless that placement would not result in any increase in the floodplain water surface elevation, meaning that th ere is no displacement or redirection of the floodway.
The City’s floodplain ordinance requires that a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California certify that no displacement of floodwater would result from the flood proofing of a structure withi n a floodplain or a regulatory floodway. The proposed project is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).10 As a result, the impact would be no impact.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project area is located outside of any Special Flood Hazard Areas and Other Areas of Flood Hazard, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map 06109C1545H, effective 02/18/2009. The project area is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water; therefore, it would not be affected by a tsunami or located within a tsunami zone. Since the project area is not located in an area that is not susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. As a result, no impact would occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City is located within the Kings Sub-basin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The planning documents regarding water resources for the City include the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Act (GSA) Groundwater Management Plan, the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan. The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. As a result, the project would not conflict with any applicable wa ter quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and the impact would be no impact.
10 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed June 20, 2023)
41 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may cons train travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The subject area is designated as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Urban Neighborhood Residential in the General Plan. Low Density Residential is intended to provide for large lot residential development, such as rural residential, ranchettes, or estate homes . Medium Density Residential is intended for areas with predominantly single -family residential development, but can also accommodate a mix of housing types, including small -lot starter homes, zero-lot-line
42 developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Urban Neighborhood Residential is intended to provide for a compact community that includes community facilities and walkable access to parkland and commercial services; it also supports efficient, frequent transit s ervice. The subject area is currently located in the Fresno County RR/NB ( Rural Residential/Neighborhood Beautification ) zone district and upon approval of an annexation, would be pre-zoned consistent with the current underlying planned land use designations to include the City of Fresno RS-1/ANX (Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay), RS-5/ANX (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay), and RM -2/ANX ( Multi-Family Residential, Urban Neighborhood/Annexed Rural Residential Transitional Overlay ) zone districts. The Fresno Municipal Code (FMC)11 identifies the RS -1 and RS -5 zone districts provide for a variety of single - family residences built to urban or suburban standards to suit a spectrum of individual lifestyles and needs, and to ensure availability throughout the city of the range of housing types necessary for all segments of the community, consistent with the General Plan . The RM -2 zone district provides opportunities for the development higher-density and affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the city. The ANX overlay district allows rural residential use of properties upon annexation to the city continuing until such time as the properties are further developed consistent with the base district.
The project would not require a change the General Plan land use designation but will require a change to the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
11 City of Fresno. 2016. Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code. Available online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Complete_Code_March_2017.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
43 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The principal area for mineral resources in the City of Fresno is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 1, MRZ- 2, and MRZ-3. The project site is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, is not a MRZ, and it doesn’t contain a MRZ . As a result, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State. Therefore, the impact would be no impact.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
44 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the p roject area to
excessive noise levels?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions, and the impact would be no impact.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No permanent noise sources would be located within the project site that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels . The proposed
45 project does not propose any new development or construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not permanently expose persons within or around the project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and the impact would be no impact.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
As previously discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Substances, impact e), t he nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 8.65 miles east of the subject area, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 5.30 miles south of the subject area, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 3.10 miles north of the subject area. The nearest medical center helipads (HP) include Saint Agnes Medical Center, located approximately 7.4 miles east of the subject area a nd Fresno Community Regional Health Center, located approximately 6.6 miles southeast of the subject area. Additionally, none of the properties within the subject area are located or designated within any airport influence area within the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
The project site is not within 2 miles of any public or private airstrip or helipad.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to the excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. The impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
46 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
The proposed project would not result in direct population growth as the use proposed is not residential and would not contribute to permanent residency on site. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth and this impact would be no impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the proposed project would not necessitate the displacement or removal of existing housing. Therefore, the impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
47 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si gnificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to all properties (75 properties in total) within the subject area that are currently being served by the North Central Fire Protection District . There are 20 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station s, Fire Station 18, located approximately 0.93 miles northwest of the subject area, and Fire Station 16,
48 located approximately 1.23 miles southeast of the subject area . Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in the City.
The proposed use of the project site is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the proposed project does not propose any new development or construction and the pre -zone will be consistent with the current underlying planned land use designations. The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services because of additional properties to be included within the City of Fresno limits.
There is concern regarding the lack of water supply and the proper fire flow needed for residential fire protection of the existing residents on West Hampton Way. A short-term solution would be to dispatch a Water Tender to a structure fire response in that area. This would require developing a strategy for and movement of the Fire Department’s water tenders from their current locations. The Fire Department has a process in place for dispatching water tenders to areas deficient of water. The residences on West Ashlan Avenue will have sufficient water with a system currently installed. Upon future development in the area, the permanent solution will be to complete the water main along North Hayes Avenue and extend through West Hampton Way. The fire prot ection provided to the residents will be improved through the annexation process with the change of the service provider.
The residents in the annexation area will improve their Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating to a department with one that is much higher, i.e. the City of Fresno Fire Department. This includes the ability to provide adequate fire protection without the use of mutual/automatic aid.
The FFD would be providing services to all properties within the subject area. FFD has reviewed the annexation area and has determined that no new fire stations will need to be built to provide adequate services. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services . The incremental increase in demand for services would not adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
ii. Police protection?
The Fresno County Sheriff’s Department currently provides police protection to the subject area. Upon annexation of the subject area, the Fresno Police Department (FPD) will provide police protection to the subject area. The FPD Patrol Division is divided into five policing districts with the nearest bein g the Northwest Police Department, located approximately 2.76 miles from the subject area . Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The proposed pre-zone of the subject area is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the
49 proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
As described in a memo provided by the Fresno Police Department dated October 16, 2023, the Fresno Police Department has examined the proposed annexation area. Based on the relatively small amount of law enforcement -related calls for service experienced by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department over the previous two years, the Fresno Police Department can adequately serve this area.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services and impacts to police protection would represent a less than significant impact.
iii. Schools?
Any urban residential development occurring as a resu lt of the proposed project would result in an impact on the Central Unified School District student capacity.
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction and the existing students living within the subject area would not relocate to a different school district as a result of the annexation and pre-zone. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact.
iv. Parks?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, impacts to parks would be no impact.
v. Other public facilities?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
50 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the impact would be no impact.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction.
Therefore, the impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
51 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. No changes are proposed to the existing circulation system of the subject area. Therefore, the proposed project will result in no impact.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (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 is no longer a relevant CEQA threshold for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to
52 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 used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7.
The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) publi shed 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 Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip ‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.”
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.1 regarding Development Projects states that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment or a Rezone, none of the screening criteria may apply, and that the City must evaluate such projects on a case-by-case basis. The proposed project includes an Annexation and Pre-zone with no proposed development or construction.
The proposed project is eligible to screen out because there is no development project proposed and all existing traffic impacts would not change.
In conclusion, the proposed project will result in no impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
53 The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction . The project would not alter pedestrian or vehicle access to the project site or introduce incompatible design features or equipment that would substantially increase the risk of hazards. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature, and the impact would be no impact.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction .
Emergency vehicles would have access to the subject area via various major and local streets, including West Ashlan Avenue, North Bryan Avenue, North Hayes Avenue, and West Hampton Way, and emergency access would not be modified as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Nat ive American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
54 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi -
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC s ection 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
As previously discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain historical resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in any local listing for Fresno County or the City of Fresno.
Furthermore, the area surrounding the project site does not contain any listed historical resources. As a result, no impact would occur.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
55 The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultura l resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Pr eservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies provide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public ag ency. The purpose of AB 52 is to provide the opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s), as defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2107(a). Under AB 52, public agenc ies shall reach out to California Native American Tribes who have requested to be notified of projects in areas within or which may have been affiliated with their tribal geographic range. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Dumna Wo Wah and Table Mountain Rancheria tribes were invited to consult. The contacted Tribes did not provide a response to invitations to consult.
The proposed project does not propose new development or construction, thus impacts to unknown archaeological historical resources result in no impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
56 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
DISCUSSION
57 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed project does not include any new construction or development, thus there will be no relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The nearest water mains to the intersection of West Ashlan and North Bryan/North Hayes Avenues provided are:
1. 14-inch water main located in West Ashlan Avenue.
2. 14-inch water main located in North Bryan Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
3. 16-inch water main located in North Hayes Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
4. 8-inch water main located in West Willis Avenue (southeast of the subject area).
5. 8-inch water main located in North Sandrini Avenue (north of West Ashlan Avenue).
Currently, there is only one property being served by the City on Ashlan between Hayes and Polk Avenues at 5757 West Ashlan Avenue, where every other property is being served by a private water well. The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the subject area subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner which is compliant with the Department of Public Utilitie s standards, specifications, and policies at such time is deemed necessary after annexation occurs.
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. As a result, the project would not result in the relocation or construction or new or expanded utilities, which could cause significant environmental effects, and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As discussed above, the Department of Public Utilities would supply water to the subject area upon its necessitation after annexation. Based on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the water supplies for the City (363,540 Acre Feet (AF)/year) are
58 adequate to accommodate the demand in the City by 2040 (i.e., 228,091 AF/year), and at buildout of the approved General Plan in 2056 (i.e., 254,834 AF/year). The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and would therefore b e covered by the City’s water supply projections. As a result, there would be sufficient water supply for the subject area, and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment prov ider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. They are the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The RWRF currently has a capacity of 91.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The North Facility has a capacity of 0.71 mgd. The proposed project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing wastewater-related services and facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Garbage disposed in the City of Fresno is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off ‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.12
Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill (City of Clovis Landfill 10-AA-0004) with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.13
The proposed project does not propose any new development or construction. Given the available capacity at the landfill s, any potential additional solid waste generated by the residents of the subject area is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed
12 CalRecycle. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352 (accessed June 20, 2023)
13 CalRecycle. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347 (accessed June 20, 2023)
59 its daily permitted capacity. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste management policies and recommendations from the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. 14 The proposed project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
14 City of Fresno, 2021. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. Available online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/03/Link4AppendixGGHGRPUpdate.pdf (accessed June 20, 2023)
60 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Fresno’s Police and Fire Departments are tasked with all local emergency response efforts. In addition, the City’s full -time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up-to- date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations.
The proposed project does not include any new construction or development. It is not anticipated that new or different impairments would occur that may physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. All future development projects within the project area will be submitted to the City and reviewed in compliance with Federal, State and local regulations related to emergency access.
The project would not result in environmental impacts and therefore, has no impact.
61 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The subject area is in an urban area and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ( VHFHSZ).15 The subject area does not possess physical characteristics that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and potentially expose project occupants to pollutants from a wildfire. The impact would be no impact.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project site is located in a developed area of the City of Fresno, and it would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would increase the risk of fire or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts, outside of what is already implemented according to City plans. As a result, no impact would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The subject area is located on a relatively flat area and is not located adjacent to any hills. In general, the potential for land sliding or slope failure in Fresno is very low and the project site would not be susceptible to landslides. The subject area is also not located on a flood hazard zone and would not be susceptible to flooding because of post-fire drainage changes. As discussed above, the subject area is not located within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, and no impact would occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2008. Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire -planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ (accessed June 20, 2023)
62 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or ani mal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to
63 eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The analysis of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species popul ation to drop below self -sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable due to the site -specific nature of the potential impacts . The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less -than-significant levels with implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of Agriculture and Forestry Resources. This impact would primarily be related to rezoning potential farmland and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics. Mitigation Measure AG-1.1 will provide mitigation for the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level, as described below.
GP PEIR Mitigation Measure AG-1.1
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever comes first, for any future projects requiring new construction or development, the Developer shall complete the following measure to mitigate the loss of agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 for the applicable net acreage before conversion (the net acreage calculation shall exclude existing roads and areas already developed with structures, and a plot plan shall be submitted to substantiate the net acreage calculation, along with written evidence of compliance).
• Mitigation land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and/or Unique Farmland and be of similar agricultural quality or higher, as established by the California Department of Conservation. Completion of the selected measure or, with the City of Fresno Planning Director’s approval, a combination of measures can occur on qualifying land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
64 Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, or Kern County) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.
The Developer shall provide in -kind value protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of approximately 28.1 acres, by recording an agricultural conservation easement on agricultural land of equal size and classification to the land being converted to non- agricultural uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the subject area. The land selected for the agricultural conservation easement will have a tangible relationship to the land being converted from an agricultural use and shall be in or adjacent to Fresn o County. The easement will be held by the City of Fresno, comply with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially similar to the model conservation easement prepared by the California Department of Conservation.
(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant-
programs/mitigation/Documents/Final%20HSR%20Documents/2017%20ALMP% 20model%20ACE.docx)
For the topic(s) of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire , the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially c ontribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document.
Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could directly or indirectly impacts human beings have been evaluated in this Initial Study. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings would be less than significant.
1 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for
Environmental Assessment No. P23-03757/P23-03758
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Living Spaces Fresno Project (project). The MMRP, which is found in Table A of this section, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements.
This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the adoption of an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project.
The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Timing for Mitigation Measure,” refers to the implementation and schedule of mitigation measures. The third column, entitled “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.
The fifth column, entitled “Verification,” will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to ve rify adherence to the project specific mitigation , when the mitigation measure is completed.
2 This page left intentionally blank.
3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
I. AESTHETICS
There are no significant impacts to Aesthetics.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure AG-1.1: Prior to issuance
of any grading or building permit, whichever
comes first, for any future projects requiring new
construction or development, the Developer
shall complete the following measure to mitigate
the loss of agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 fo r
the applicable net acreage before conversion
(the net acreage calculation shall exclude
existing roads and areas already developed with
structures, and a plot plan shall be submitted to
substantiate the net acreage calculation, along
with written evidence of compliance).
• Mitigation land shall meet the
definition of Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance,
and/or Unique Farmland and be of
similar agricultural quality or higher,
as established by the California
Department of Conservation.
Completion of the selected measure
can occur on qualifying land within
Fresno County.
The Developer shall provide in -kind value
protection at a ratio of 1:1 for a total of
Prior to issuance of
grading permits,
during project
construction
Construction
Contractor
Planning and
Development
4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
approximately 28.1 acres, by recording an
agricultural conservation easement on
agricultural land of equal size and classification
to the land being converted to non -agricultural
uses prior to obtaining a grading permit for the
subject area. The land selected for the
agricultural conservation easement will have a
tangible relationship to the land being converted
from an agricultural use and shall be in or
adjacent to Fresno County. The easement will
be held by the City of Fresno, comply with t he
requirements of California Civil Code Section
815 et. seq., and will be in a form substantially
similar to the model conserva tion easement
prepared by the California Department of
Conservation.
(https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant-
programs/mitigation/Documents/Final%20HSR
%20Documents/2017%20ALMP%20model%20
ACE.docx)
III. AIR QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to Air Quality.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Biological Resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Cultural Resources
VI. ENERGY
5 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
There are no significant impacts to Energy.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There are no significant impacts to Geology and Soils.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
There are no significant impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There are no significant impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are no significant impacts to Land Use and Planning.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Mineral Resources.
XIII. NOISE
There are no significant impacts to Noise.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
There are no significant impacts to Population and Housing.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
There are no significant impacts to Public Services.
XVI. RECREATION
There are no significant impacts to Recreation.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
There are no significant impacts to Transportation.
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources.
6 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no significant impacts to Utilities and Service Systems XX. WILDFIRE
There are no significant impacts to Wildfire.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
There are no significant impacts related to Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Source: City of Fresno (November 10, 2023).