Fresno City Council
February 1, 2024

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.7.7 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Fresno County, the project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.10 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact.

4.7.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if it – in combination with other projects – would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Implementation of the proposed project in combination with other projects in the project area and larger region could increase hazard-related impacts (i.e., hazardous waste/material potential release, interference with emergency plan, wildland fires, etc.) in the project area; however, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local policies and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 identified above would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. In 10 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 2. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_ 1_map10.pdf (accessed September 2, 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx «02/21/23» 4.7-19 addition, development of the proposed project would involve the transportation and use of hazardous materials, such as chemicals and solvents used for construction activities and routine cleaning and maintenance; however, as demonstrated in the analysis above, this impact is considered less than significant, and would likely not affect public or environmental health.

Although other projects would have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are site specific. Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous material or wastes. Federal, state, and local regulations require mitigation to protect against site contamination by hazardous materials.

Therefore, there would be no cumulative hazardous materials impacts.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less than Significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.7 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx «02/21/23» -20 This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-1

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to hydrology and water quality associated with the proposed project. This section also addresses local, State, and federal regulations as they pertain to project impacts on hydrology and water quality. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA)1 was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K). The WSA contains information from the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 2 4.8.1 Environmental Setting
The following discussion outlines the hydrological conditions of the City of Fresno.

4.8.1.1 Precipitation
Precipitation in the City of Fresno occurs mostly as rain during the months of November through April. Climate data collected from 1948 to 2016 shows that annual rainfall averaged 10.89 inches but is variable. Recorded annual rainfall has ranged from a low of 3.01 inches in 2013 to a high of 21.61 inches in 1983.3

4.8.1.2 Hydrologic Setting
The City of Fresno is located in the Kings Subbasin and lies within the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in the Central Valley of California. The Kings Subbasin covers approximately 1,530 square miles. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded to the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges. The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium-granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, to the south by the southern fork of the Kings River, and to the west by the DeltaMendota and Westside subbasins. The Kings Subbasin is split into seven Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) management areas, with Fresno located in the North Kings GSA.

4.8.1.3 Groundwater
The City of Fresno is underlain by the Kings River Subbasin, which, along with six other subbasins, comprises the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. In turn, the San Joaquin Basin is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region spans approximately 10.9 million acres (17,000 square miles) and includes most of Fresno County. The Region encompasses the southern one‐third of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction.
1 LSA. 2022. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, Fresno, California. July. 2 Fresno, City of. 2021. City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 3 Western Regional Climate Center. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Fresno Yosemite Intl AP, California (043257). Average Total Precipitation (inches). Website: wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257 (accessed October 2022).
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -2 Groundwater Management. The seven GSAs operate cooperatively across the basin via a coordination agreement that ensures common approaches to sustainability items such as similarity of data usage and methodologies, consistent interpretations of the basin setting, and common assumptions and development of water budgets, monitoring networks, sustainable management criteria, and data management systems.

As required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the North Kings GSA considers six sustainability indicators:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels, indicating significant and unreasonable depletion of supply;
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality;
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

Each indicator has an identified undesirable result, measurable objective, and minimum threshold.

The measurable objective and minimum threshold allow the North Kings GSA to evaluate their progress for the subject indicator and determine if conditions are improving, remaining stable or degrading. The sustainability indicators of primary concern within the City are groundwater levels, groundwater storage, and groundwater quality. The methodology for the water quality indicators has been developed and the methodology is still being developed for the groundwater levels and groundwater storage indicators.

Groundwater Quality. Groundwater within the North Kings Subbasin generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal water use and is described as being bicarbonatetype water, including calcium, magnesium, and sodium as the dominant ions. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations rarely exceed 600 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and range from 200 to 700 mg/L.

However, the groundwater basin has been impacted by multiple chemical contaminants that affect the City’s ability to fully utilize the groundwater basin resources without some type of wellhead treatment in certain areas.

The primary contaminants are nitrate, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and other volatile organic compounds like trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). The City has received settlements in a number of lawsuits related to these contaminants and has constructed wellhead treatment systems and implemented blending plans for a number of wells. Approximately 40 City wells are being treated for contaminants such as PCE, DBCP, TCE, 1,2,3-TCP, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, ethylene dibromide, and

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-3 nitrate, and an additional 20 wells include treatment for iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide removal or corrosion control.

Extensive groundwater contamination nearly covers the City’s entire water service area; only areas located in the northwest appear to be relatively unaffected by regional groundwater contamination.

Also, many of the City’s wells are impacted by one or more of the contaminant plumes.

4.8.1.4 Surface Water
Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run-off from urban areas, and warm water drainage discharges into cold water streams.

The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which can produce significant amounts of drainage runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels. Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.

Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non-point discharge under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 until the mid-1980's. However, since then, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point source (an identifiable source) subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, and further rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of federal water pollution control laws.

Surface water pollution is also caused by erosion. Excessive and improperly managed grading, vegetation removal, quarrying, logging, and agricultural practices all lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In slower moving water bodies these same factors often cause a buildup of siltation, which ultimately reduces the capacity of the water system to percolate and recharge groundwater basins, as well as adversely affecting both aquatic resources and flood control efforts.

4.8.1.5 Stormwater Drainage
The Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area and surrounding rural vicinities are within the service area boundaries of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), which has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows. Most stormwater in Fresno drains to urban stormwater basins, where the water is retained to attenuate peak-flow runoff and recharge stormwater, or is pumped to local irrigation canals for conveyance away from the municipal areas. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -4 The storm drainage facilities are documented in the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP), which is developed and updated by FMFCD. The master plan drainage system for the City consists of over 170 individual drainage areas or urban watersheds. Drainage area boundaries are determined by geographic and topographic features and the economics of providing storm drainage service to the watershed. The storm drainage facilities within a drainage area consist of storm drain inlets, pipeline, retention basins, urban detention (water quality) basins, and stormwater pump stations. Surface grading improvements such as streets, curbs, gutters, and valley gutters are part of the City of Fresno infrastructure, but the general grading of these features is governed by the SDFCMP to provide a coherent implementation of drainage within the City.

Storm drain inlets are located at low points in the topography as determined by the SDFCMP.

Pipeline alignments and sizes are also shown on the SDFCMP. Pipeline alignments are subject to change as development proposals are put forward by development projects. Retention basins and urban detention basins locations and geometry are part of the SDFCMP as well. Basins are sited in the topographic low point of the drainage area. All of the storm drainage pipelines are directed to the retention and urban detention basins. Retention basins store and percolate stormwater from the drainage area if time between storms permits, or is otherwise pumped to designated irrigation canals. Urban detention basins provide quiescent (still) conditions for the removal or settling out of suspended solids prior to discharge of the stormwater to the San Joaquin River.

The Fresno‐Clovis Metropolitan area consists of drainage areas that are completed, e.g., all of the master planned facilities are constructed and functional; or in the process of being completed, e.g. portions of the retention basins, pipelines, and inlets are constructed and portions are not. For the drainage areas that are in the planning stage, e.g., the drainage area is planned and documented, the retention basin land may have been purchased, but no construction has occurred.

Implementation of the SDFCMP occurs in response to development activity in newly developing areas and through Capital Improvement Project (CIP) planning in previously developed areas.

Funding for storm drainage facilities occurs through the collection of drainage fees assessed on parcels as they develop through grant funding from the State of California and the Federal Government, through low interest infrastructure improvement bonds, and in the past, through assessment districts. Drainage fees fund most of the construction of master plan facilities in newly developing areas. Grants, infrastructure loans, and assessment districts fund most of the construction in previously developed drainage areas.

4.8.1.6 Inundation Hazards
Floods. The City of Fresno is in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. Numerous smaller, unnamed drainage courses also drain into the Planning Area from the rural areas east of the Planning Area.

Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Planning Area,4 there are areas that are subject to the 100‐year frequency flood zone. 4 Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Website: msc.fema.gov/ portal/home (accessed September 6, 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-5 The primary area that is subject to the 100‐year flood zone is along the San Joaquin River below the bluffs. There are additional areas in the vicinity of the Fresno International Airport, the Southeast Development Area in the vicinity of the Redbank Creek Dam, adjacent to Highway 180 east of Clovis Avenue, and within an industrial area east of SR‐99, south of California Avenue and north of Jensen Avenue. In addition, various detention basins are subject to the 100‐year flood zone. The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood zone.

Seiches. Seiches are surface waves with longer period of water-level oscillations within a lake, bay, or estuary typically caused by earthquakes, wind, or changes in atmospheric pressure. Once the forces stop, water rebounds to the other side of the enclosed area and oscillates back and forth for a given amount of time (typically hours) based on the size and volume of the water body. The project site is not in the vicinity of a body of water substantial enough to experience seiches.

Tsunamis. A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by sudden large-scale displacement on the ocean floor and is associated with large earthquakes. The project site is located approximately 106 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the chances of a tsunami impacting the project site are negligible.

Mudflows. A mudflow is type of landslide composed of saturated fine-grained earth materials with a wet cement consistency. The project site is relatively flat, and there are no slopes on or immediately near the project site capable of generating a mudflow.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
This section summarizes key federal, State, and local regulations and programs related to hydrology and water quality.

4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) established a basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into Waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.

The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. The “Clean Water Act” became the Act’s common name with amendments in 1977.

Under the CWA, the USEPA has implemented pollution control programs and established water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a NPDES permit was obtained. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or manmade ditches. While residential structures that are either connected to a municipal system or otherwise do not discharge into surface waters are not required to obtain a NPDES permit, industrial, municipal, and similar facilities must obtain permits to discharge directly into surface waters. In California, the NPDES program is administered through the nine RWQCBs.

Non‐point sources are similarly regulated through a General Construction Activity Stormwater NPDES permit. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, excavating, and general disturbances to the ground. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -6 required for the issuance of a General Construction Activity Stormwater NPDES permit and typically include the implementation of structural and non‐structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts related to surface water quality.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Section 402 of the CWA established the NPDES to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. In the State of California, the USEPA has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as the permitting authority to implement the NPDES program. The SWRCB issues two‐baseline general permits; one for industrial operations, the other for construction activities (General Construction Permit). Additionally, the NPDES program includes the regulation of stormwater discharges from cities, counties, and other municipalities under Order No. R8‐2009‐0030 (waste discharge requirements for stormwater) and updated under Order No. 5- 01-048 for the Central Valley Region.

Under the General Construction Permit, stormwater discharges from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to obtain either individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Each applicant under the Construction General Permit is required to both prepare a SWPPP prior to the commencement of grading activities and to ensure implementation of the SWPPP during construction activities. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction site during construction activities.

BMPs may include programs, technologies, processes, practices, and devices that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution. The SWPPP would also address BMPs developed specifically to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges following the completion of construction activities.

The NPDES program also includes regulations for discharging limited threat wastewater to waters of the United States under Order No. R5-2022-0006. “Limited threat” wastewater refers to clean or relatively pollutant-free wastewaters that pose little or no threat to water quality. Limited threat wastewater includes water from the following sources:
• Well Development Water
• Construction Dewatering
• Pump/Well Testing
• Pipeline/Tank Pressure Testing
• Pipeline/Tank Flushing or Dewatering
• Condensate
• Water Supply System
• Aggregate Mine
• Filter Backwash Water
Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. This SDWA focuses on all waters either designed or potentially designed for drinking water use, whether from surface water or groundwater sources.

The SDWA and subsequent amendments authorized the USEPA to establish health‐based standards,

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-1 or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for drinking water to protect public health against both natural and anthropogenic contaminants. All owners or operators of public water systems are required to comply with these primary (health‐related) standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these primary standards for the USEPA, also encourage attainment of secondary (nuisance‐related) standards. At the federal level, the USEPA administers the SDWA and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, organic, inorganic, and radiological constituents (United States Code Title 42, and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40). At the state level, California has adopted its own SDWA, which incorporates the federal SDWA standards with some other requirements specific only to California (California Health and Safety Code, Section 116350 et seq.).

The 1996 SDWA amendments established source water assessment programs pertaining to untreated water from rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater aquifers used for drinking water supply. According to these amendments, the USEPA must consider a detailed risk and cost assessment, as well as best available peer‐reviewed science, when developing standards for drinking water. These programs are the foundation of protecting drinking water resources from contamination and avoiding costly treatment to remove pollutants. In California, the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program fulfills these federal mandates. The Division of Drinking Water of the State Water Resources Control Board is the primary agency for developing and implementing the DWSAP program, and is responsible for performing the assessments of existing groundwater sources.

4.8.2.2 State Regulations
Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, which became Division 7 of the California Water Code, authorized the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters through water allocation and water quality protection. The SWRCB implements the requirement of the CWA Section 303, which states that water quality standards must be established for certain waters through the adoption of water quality control plans under the Porter‐Cologne Act. The Porter‐Cologne Act established the responsibilities and authorities of the nine RWQCBs, which include preparing water quality plans within the regions, identifying water quality objectives, and instituting waste discharge requirements. Water quality objectives are defined as limits or levels of water quality constituents and characteristics established for reasonable protection of beneficial uses or prevention of nuisance. Beneficial uses consist of all the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Porter‐Cologne Act was later amended to provide the authority delegated from the USEPA to issue NPDES permits regulating discharges to Waters of the United States.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the SGMA. The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally".

The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with the potential for state intervention if necessary to protect the resource.

The act requires the formation of local GSAs that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally‐based management plans. The groundwater basin that serves Fresno has been 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -2 designated by the Department of Water Resources as high‐priority and subject to a condition of critical overdraft.

Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq., requires publicly or privately owned water suppliers that provide more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually or supply more than 3,000 customers to prepare a plan that:
• Plans for water supply and assesses reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in 5- year increments.
• Identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands, in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. • Implements conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7 [SBX7-7]), which amends the act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code Senate Bills 610 and 221, Water Supply Planning. To assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrated water and land use planning, the state passed Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and SB 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001), effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 and SB 221 improve the link between information of water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. This detailed information must be included in the administrative record as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The statutes recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments (WSA) must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA, as defined in Water Code Section 10912[a].Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before construction begins.

The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 af of water annually should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Both SB 610 and SB 221 identify the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as a planning document that can be used by a water supplier to meet the standards in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs are foundations for water suppliers to fulfill the specific requirements of these two statutes, and they are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their general plans.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-3 Conversely, general plans are source documents as water suppliers update the UWMPs. These planning documents are linked, and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent.

Additionally, pursuant to the California Water Code Section 10632, urban water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 acre-feet per year or have more than 3,000 connections are required to prepare and adopt a standalone Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as part of its Urban Water Management Plan. A WSCP is a detailed plan on how an urban water supplier intends to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time. The WSCP is used to provide guidance by identifying response actions to allow for responsible management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought and catastrophic supply interruptions.

AB 3030, California Groundwater Management Act. The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code (AB 3030) provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop a voluntary Groundwater Management Plan in state-designated groundwater basins.Local Regulations City of Fresno General Plan. The City of Fresno’s General Plan Public Utilities and Services Element and Resource Conservation and Resilience Element include objectives and policies that work to manage and develop the City’s water facilities and ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water. The following policies related to hydrology and water quality are applicable to the proposed project:
• Policy PU‐5‐c: Satellite Facilities. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that approval of any satellite treatment and reclamation facility proposal is consistent with governing statutes and regulations.
• Policy PU‐7‐b: Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety. • Policy PU‐7‐e: Infiltration Basins. Continue to rehabilitate existing infiltration basins, and if determined appropriate, pursue acquiring additional sites for infiltration basins, as needed. • Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio.
• Policy PU-8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -4 • Policy PU-8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.
• Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
• Policy RC-6-b: Water Plans. Adopt and implement ordinances, standards, and policies to achieve the intent of the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to ensure a dependable supply of water. • Policy RC-6-c: Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025.
• Policy RC‐6‐g: Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater. • Policy RC‐6‐h: Conditions of Approval. Include in the Development Code standards for imposing conditions of approval for development projects to ensure long-term maintenance of adequate clean water resources. Require findings that adequate water supply must exist prior to any discretionary project approval for residential and commercial development requiring annexation, as required by law.
• Policy RC‐7‐a: Water Conservation Program Target. Maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage in the city’s water service area to 243 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020 and 190 gpcd by 2035, by adopting conservation standards and implementing a program of incentives, design and operation standards, and user fees. ○ Support programs that result in decreased water demand, such as landscaping standards that require drought-tolerant plants, rebates for water conserving devices and systems, turf replacement, xeriscape landscape for new homes, irrigation controllers, commercial/industrial/institutional water conserving programs, prioritized leak detection program, complete water system audit, landscape water audit and budget program, and retrofit upon resale ordinance.
○ Implement the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation as necessary to maintain the City’s surface water entitlements. ○ Adopt and implement policies in the event that an artificial lake is proposed for development.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-5 ○ Work cooperatively toward effective uniform water conservation measures that would apply throughout the Planning Area.
○ Expand efforts to educate the public about water supply issues and water conservation techniques.
• Policy RC‐7‐b: Water Pricing and Metering. Develop a tiered water cost structure for both residential and commercial users that will properly price water based on its true cost; require all new development to be metered for water use; and charge all customers the true, full cost of their water supply, including costs of acquisition, initial treatment, conveyance, wastewater treatment, operations, maintenance, and remediation.
• Policy RC‐7‐c: Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City facilities and all new private development to follow U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.
• Policy RC-7-d: Update Standards for New Development. Continue to refine water saving and conservation standards for new development.
• Policy RC‐7‐h: Landscape Water Conservation Standards. Refine landscape water conservation standards that will apply to new development installed landscapes, building on the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and other State regulations. ○ Evaluate and apply, as appropriate, augmented xeriscape, “water-wise,” and “green gardening” practices to be implemented in public and private landscaping design and maintenance.
○ Facilitate implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by developing alternative compliance measures that are easy to understand and observe.

City of Fresno Municipal Code. Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose of the City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.) by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting nonstormwater discharges to the storm drain system.

Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, Article 6 Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance establish methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -6 plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.

4.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures, if required. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

4.8.3.1 Significance Criteria
The thresholds for impacts related to hydrology and water quality used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:

Threshold 4.8.1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; Threshold 4.8.2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
Threshold 4.8.3 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:
• Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; • Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
• 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
• Impede or redirect flood flows;
Threshold 4.8.4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or
Threshold 4.8.5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-7

4.8.3.2 Project Impacts
The following discussion describes the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Threshold 4.8.1 Would the project 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 RWQCBs regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction of the proposed project include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies, including the Houghton Canal, located approximately 140 feet to the west of the project site.

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

The Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion and sediment control, designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on-site, and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Section 6-714 of the City’s Municipal Code also requires the implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent technologically and economically feasible to prevent and reduce pollutants from entering stormwater during construction. Therefore, adherence to the required SWPPP and the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of construction BMPs, would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants into Houghton Canal during construction and impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

During construction, it is likely that dewatering would be required. If groundwater is encountered during construction, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region’s NPDES Waste Discharge Requirements for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Order R5-2022-0006, NPDES No. CAG995002). With adherence to the Waste Discharge Requirements pertaining to Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, project construction would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -8 Operation. Operation of the proposed project could result in surface water pollution associated with chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation into nearby water bodies.

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

CAS0085324). Consistent with the City of Fresno’s MS4 Permit, the project would implement storm water quality controls recommended in the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Construction and Post-Construction Guidelines. If applicable, the project would also be subject to the Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Order 2014-0057-DWQ as amended in 2015 and 2018) (Industrial General Permit) and would be required to develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non-stormwater discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, sample storm water runoff and test for pollutant indicators, and submit an annual report to the State Water Resources Control Board.

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

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

As described above, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.8.2 Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The City of Fresno overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is one of many water purveyors that use groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. The City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin. Until late 2004, the City relied solely on groundwater to meet the water demands. The City’s desire is to continue to use groundwater within

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-9 a larger conjunctive use program that maximizes Its existing water rights and surface water supply sources.

Temporary dewatering from excavations could be necessary during construction of the proposed project. Construction-related dewatering would be temporary and limited to the area of excavations on the project site and would not substantially contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies.

Operation of the project would not require groundwater extraction. Following project implementation, there would be a minor increase in impervious surface area. An increase in impervious surface area decreases infiltration, which can decrease the amount of water that is able to recharge the aquifer/groundwater. However, the small increase in impervious area would not substantially decrease any infiltration that currently may occur on the site. Therefore, the project would not impede the Central Valley RWQCB’s ability to manage groundwater. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable management of the Kings Subbasin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed above, the City receives its water supply from groundwater and surface water. The City’s 2020 UWMP addresses the City’s water service reliability, future challenges, and strategies for managing risks to water reliability through 2045. 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 the City’s current UWMP 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 recharge, 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.

General Plan policies require the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.

As described in the WSA prepared for the proposed project5 , the City has concluded that the City of
Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. Additionally, implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)6
, the City of Fresno UWMP, the Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan7, 5 LSA. 2022. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, Fresno, California. July. 6 Kings Basin Water Authority. 2018. Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.kingsbasinauthority.org/governance/governing-documents/irwmp/ (accessed September 6, 2022).
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -10 and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan would address the continued provision of an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the proposed project.

As such, the impact would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.8.3 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site? Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the project area can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.

During construction of the proposed project, excavated soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed previously, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance with the requirements in the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, and with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

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

Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in an impact related to substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce or eliminate the proposed project’s potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. As such, the impact would be less than significant. 7 Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan. 2006. December. Website:
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Fresno-Area-Regional-GWMP-Final.pdf (accessed September 6, 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-11 Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner, Which Would Result in Flooding On‐ or Off‐Site? During construction of the proposed project, soil would be disturbed and compacted, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on-site. With adherence to the Construction General Permit, construction impacts related to altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-site or off-site would be less than significant.

While the proposed project would permanently increase the impervious surface area in the project site, the project would maintain the overall on-site drainage patterns and continue to direct surface water to catch basins that flow into the existing storm drains. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant would be required to provide a stormwater improvement plan to the City to ensure that the stormwater system would be capable of handling a 25-year storm and that the drainage facilities conform to City requirements. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs if the City determines that the City’s storm drain system or storm drain pumping capacity requires expansion or modification as a result of the project.

Therefore, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant.

Create or Contribute Runoff Water, Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff? Construction. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located in the parking lot and the perimeter of the project site. However, compliance with pre-existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of a SWPPP, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project construction to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, construction would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially increase runoff from the site.

However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the WPCP and compliance with the MS4, as specified in the Industrial General Permit, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, project operations would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant.

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows? Although implementation of the proposed project would result in impervious surface, because there are no drainages that cross the project site that would be altered, drainage patterns would not be altered. Runoff within the project site would be conveyed to storm 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -12 drain inlets and then carried to retention basins to infiltrate into soil. In addition, the proposed project is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect potential flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.8.4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is not located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the use of hazardous materials within the project site. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.8.5 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The City is located within the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The planning documents regarding water resources for the City include Kings IRWMP, the City of Fresno UWMP, the Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan. As noted above, the proposed project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements. As a result, the proposed project would not include any other waste discharges that could conflict with the IRWMP.

In addition, as discussed in the WSA prepared for the proposed project, the potable demand projections in the 2020 UWMP for normal water use utilize land use-based projections. Under this methodology, existing land use and demand was accounted separately from future land use and demand. This allows different demand factors to be applied to current land use areas and future land use areas. Future land use areas represent future customers and developments that are expected to be more water-efficient than existing land uses and buildings due to the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and use of higher-efficiency appliances and landscapes.

The existing and future land use acreage was sourced from the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database and the City’s General Plan. The existing land use shapefile and associated acreage for each land use classification were used to represent 2020 land use data. Areas not served by the City were excluded from the existing land use shapefile. The future land use shapefile corresponds with the planned land use at buildout as described in the City’s General Plan representing the year 2056. Although the City does not have any plans to serve areas currently served by others within the City limits, all areas within the City’s SOI were assumed to be served by the City by buildout for conservative planning purposes.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» 4.8-13 The land use acreage between 2020 and 2056 was estimated in 5-year increments based on areas planned to be developed by 2030 from the City’s Planning Department, and by linearly interpolating the remainder of the change in acreage for each land use category between 2030 and 2056. Projectspecific water demand was calculated using the methodology from the 2020 UWMP, as described above, based on the following assumptions:
• The 2020 UWMP indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025; and • The 2020 UWMP indicates the projected water demand for industrial land uses in 2025 will be 7,410 AFY.

Therefore, it is assumed that industrial land uses, such as the proposed project, will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025. The total project site is 48.03 acres. Therefore, based on the assumptions identified above, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 68.2 AFY.

The project site is included in the land use area covered by the City’s 2020 UWMP and is designated as Heavy Industrial in the City’s General Plan. Land use acreages and water demand in the 2020 UWMP were based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for 2020 and buildout in 2056.

As such, the acreage associated with the proposed project was assumed Industrial in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, it is assumed that demand for water was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP.

There is no evidence, in consideration of the calculated project water demand, that such demand exceeds that estimated in the 2020 UWMP. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 UWMP.

The City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

4.8.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Buildout of the proposed project, along with construction and operation of other projects in the vicinity of the project site, would increase the amount of paved impervious surfaces within the City.

This increase in impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes over those that occur from undeveloped land. This increase in runoff would have the potential to increase the amount of polluted runoff; however, all development projects within the Fresno‐Clovis area would be required to comply with the MS4 Permit that requires the implementation of water quality and watershed protection measures. Compliance with the MS4 Permit would reduce potential impacts from cumulative projects to less than cumulatively significant. Since the development under the proposed project would also need to comply with the MS4 Permit, the Construction General Permit, a SWPPP, and specific policies of the General Plan identified above, the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to stormwater. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.8 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx «02/21/23» -14 The Kings Subbasin is in overdraft condition due to pumping for agricultural and urban uses. Growth in the subbasin will increase demands for groundwater pumping, potentially resulting in continued drawdown of water levels leading to localized cones of depression, changes in groundwater flow direction, concentration of contaminants, and land subsidence. This is a regional problem that is being addressed through several means including the formation of GSA’s and the development of GSPs. The proposed project would implement applicable Fresno General Plan policies, the IRWMP, the City of Fresno 2020 UWMP, the Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan, which contain strategies to ensure adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the City of Fresno. Additionally, as described above and in the WSA prepared for the proposed project, the City’s water system has sufficient capacity to service the proposed project, as well as meet other projected demands in the City’s service area. Therefore, the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to the Kings Subbasin would not be cumulatively considerable and the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to groundwater management in the Kings Subbasin.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-1

4.9 NOISE
This section describes existing noise and vibration conditions, sets forth criteria for determining the significance of noise and vibration impacts, and estimates the likely noise and vibration impacts that would result from construction and operation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are identified, as necessary, to address significant environmental impacts. The analysis in this section is based on the Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum1 prepared for the proposed project (Appendix L).

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
The setting section begins with an introduction to several key concepts and terms that are used in evaluating noise. This section also includes a description of current noise sources that affect the project site and the noise conditions that are experienced in the project site vicinity.

4.9.1.1 Characteristics of Sound
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally related to annoyance, while loudness can affect our ability to hear through hearing damage. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave, resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves, combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound pressure refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be measured precisely with instruments. The project analysis defines the noise environment of the planning area in terms of sound pressure levels and the project’s effect on sensitive land uses.

4.9.1.2 Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured with the A-weighted decibel scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound, similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Decibels, unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve.

For example, 10 decibels (dB) is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 1 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the sound’s loudness.

Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). 1 LSA. 2023. Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project. February 3.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -2 Sound levels generate from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound levels dissipate exponentially with distance from their noise sources. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations) the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the relaxation and sleeping hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term noise impact assessment.

Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level.

The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 dB and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

Table 4.9.A lists definitions of acoustical terms, and Table 4.9.B shows common sound levels and their sources.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-3 Table 4.9.A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit of sound level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in 1 second (i.e., the number of cycles per second).

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A-weighted unless reported otherwise.) L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period, respectively.

Equivalent Continuous
Noise Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time. It is usually a composite of sound from many sources from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control (Harris 1991).

4.9.1.3 Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to sound levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high sound levels affects the entire system, with prolonged sound exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of sound exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the sound level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of sound is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by a feeling of pain in the ear (i.e., the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160–165 dBA will result in dizziness or a loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -4 Table 4.9.B: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Source: Compiled by LSA (2016).

4.9.1.4 Fundamentals of Vibration
Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items sitting on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with both ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet from the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet.

When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-5 assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, both construction of the project and the freight train operations could result in ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying.

Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path will usually be greater than ground-borne noise.

Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train-induced ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile-driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings. Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as:

Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]
where “Lv” is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the RMS velocity amplitude, and “Vref” is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-6 inches/second (in/sec) used in the United States.

Table 4.9.C illustrates human response to various vibration levels, as described in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual).2 Table 4.9.C: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration
Vibration
Velocity Level
Noise Level
Low Human Response
Frequency1
Mid
Frequency2
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA
Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Low-frequency sound is usually inaudible; mid-frequency sound is excessive for quiet sleeping areas.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA
Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level unacceptable. Low-frequency noise is acceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise is annoying in most quiet occupied areas. 85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA
Vibration is acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise is unacceptable for sleeping areas; midfrequency noise is unacceptable even for infrequent events with institutional land uses, such as schools and churches.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). 1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz. 2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. dBA = A-weighted decibels
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
Hz = Hertz
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
2 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Report No. 0123. September. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -6 Factors that influence ground-borne vibration and noise include:
• Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, railroad track/roadway surface, railroad track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source. • Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth. • Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption.

Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock.

Experience with ground-borne vibration indicates (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff, clay soils than in loose, sandy soils; and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground-borne vibration problems at large distances from a railroad track. Factors such as layering of the soil and the depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils.

4.9.1.5 Overview of the Existing Noise Environment
Existing Noise Level Measurements. To assess existing noise levels, LSA conducted two long-term and four short-term noise measurements at the proposed project site. The long-term noise measurements were recorded on September 28, 2022 and on September 29, 2022. The long-term noise measurements captured data to calculate the hourly Leq and CNEL at each location, which incorporate the nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include traffic on West Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue, as well as railway activities and nearby aircraft operations. Noise measurement data collected during long-term noise monitoring are summarized in Table 4.9.D.

Existing Traffic Noise. The guidelines included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) were used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values.

Traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study provided in Appendix M. Table 4.9.E provides the existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity. These traffic noise levels are based on the specific breakdown of the vehicle percentages based on type and time of day and are representative of a worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding between the traffic and the noise contours.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-7 Table 4.9.D: Long-Term Noise Level Measurements
Location
Daytime Hours
Noise Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening Hours
Noise Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Hours
Noise Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Average Daily
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Average Noise Level
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
(dBA Leq)
Average Noise Level
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
(dBA Leq)
LT-1: West of 2625 W Nielsen Avenue. On a
tree, approximately 40 feet away from W
Neilson centerline

61.0-68.3 56.2-61.4 52.0-66.2 67.6 62.3 59.1
LT-2: North of site, near rail tracks,
approximately 30 feet from track closest to
site.

46.6-66.6 55.8-65.3 50.2-56.4 62.0 56.7 53.3
ST-14: Between second and third tree north
of cemetery entrance. Approximately 35 feet
from N Hughes Avenue centerline

58.8-66.1 54.0-59.2 49.8-64.0 65.4 60.1 56.9
ST-24: North of Belmont Avenue.

Approximately 40 feet away from centerline.

By 2560 Belmont Avenue entrance (AAA
Welding).

61.6-68.9 56.8-62.0 52.6-66.8 68.2 62.9 59.7
ST-34: West of N Marks Avenue, south of
overpass entrance, by power pole.

Approximately 50 feet away from Marks Ave.
centerline

62.8-70.1 58.0-63.2 53.8-68.0 69.4 64.1 60.9
ST-44: South of Nielsen Avenue,
approximately 40 feet away from centerline.

East of 2307 W Nielsen Ave entrance.

61.5-68.8 56.7-61.9 52.5-66.7 68.1 62.8 59.6
Source: Compiled by LSA. (October 2022). 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4 Hourly and daily noise levels at short-term noise monitoring locations were estimated by the noise profile of nearby long-term measurements dBA = A-weighted decibels
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -8 Table 4.9.E: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without Project Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerline to
65 dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerline to
60 dBA CNEL
(feet)
CNEL (dBA) 50 feet
from Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Marks Avenue between Belmont
Avenue and Nielsen Avenue
10,190 158 486 1,532 72.8
Marks Avenue between Nielsen
Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
11,554 178 551 1,737 73.3
Marks Avenue between Ray
Johnson Drive and SR-180
Westbound Ramps
12,019 185 573 1,807 73.5
Belmont Avenue between Marks
Avenue and Hughes Avenue
7,240 92 280 881 71.0
Nielsen Avenue between Marks
Avenue and Hughes Avenue
1,614 < 50 71 199 64.0
Hughes Avenue between Nielsen
Avenue and Belmont Avenue
2,604 < 50 105 318 66.3
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2022).

Notes: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
SR- = State Route
Airport Operations. There are currently three airports within the City of Fresno: Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno‐Chandler Executive Airport, and Sierra Sky Park Airport. Commercial jet aircraft operations are limited to Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Air National Guard is also stationed there and operates military jets and other aircraft. Private and commercial operations with smaller aircraft use Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport, while only small private aircraft use Sierra Sky Park Airport.

The nearest airports to the project site include Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located 0.8 mile from the project site, the Sierra Sky Airport, 6.7 miles from the project site, and Fresno International Airport, 7.1 miles from the project site. Each of these airports is included in the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which guides approximate compatible land uses. The City of Fresno General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP. The ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. The project site is not within an ALUCP.

Railroad Operations. The two major rail lines that traverse the city are the Union Pacific Railroad line, which is generally runs along State Route (SR) 99, and the BNSF Railway, which diverges from SR‐99 in the southwest and travels through downtown (behind City Hall) to the northwest. The Union Pacific line is generally within a heavy commercial and industrial corridor, although residential uses occur in the vicinity of the line north of Shaw Avenue. The Union Pacific line limits its use to only freight traffic. South of downtown, BNSF Railway is bounded by industrial uses, while north of downtown, the line is generally within a residential area. The BNSF Railway carries both freight and passenger traffic (Amtrak).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-9 The closest rail line to the project site is 315 feet north of the project site.

Stationary Noise Sources. Stationary noise sources can also have an effect on the population, and unlike mobile, transportation‐related noise sources, these sources generally have a more permanent and consistent impact on people. These stationary noise sources involve a wide spectrum of uses and activities, including various industrial uses, commercial operations, agricultural production, school playgrounds, high school football games, on-site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps.

Even with incorporation of the best available noise control technology, noise emanating from industrial uses can be substantial and exceed local noise standards. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components that may be annoying to nearby receptors. Although industrial uses in Fresno are typically in industrial districts near freeways and commercial uses and away from residences and other sensitive noise receptors, noise sources associated with commercial uses such as automotive repair facilities, recycling centers, and loading docks may occur in the vicinity of residential uses.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Noise and vibration regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

4.9.2.1 Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency. In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act. This act authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 dBA during a 24-hour period of time. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 ft, with no community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. The USEPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards.3
Federal Transit Administration. Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance, as shown in Table 4.9.F. The criteria presented in Table 4.9.F account for the variations in project types, which differ widely among projects.

The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table 4.9.G lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA Manual. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -10 Table 4.9.F: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-power optical microscopes (up to 20×).

Residential Night and
Operating Rooms
72 Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.

Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 As measured in 1/3-Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.

FTA = Federal Transit Administration
LV = velocity in decibels
Max = maximum
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Table 4.9.G: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate LV (VdB)1
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = microinches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
FTA Manual guidelines show that for potential annoyance thresholds, a level of up to 78 VdB is acceptable during the daytime hours at residential uses while a level of 87 VdB is appropriate for office uses, and a level of 90 VdB is appropriate for workshop uses. To assess damage potential, a vibration level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non-engineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).

4.9.2.2 State Regulations
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings near noise sources. Referred to as the State Noise Insulation Standard, it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached singlefamily dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-11 These requirements are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A.

The State has also established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses.

4.9.2.3 Local Regulations
City of Fresno General Plan. The City of Fresno’s General Plan Noise Element includes objectives and policies that work to protect the citizens of the City from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. The following policies related to noise are applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the Noise Element sets noise standards for transportation and stationary noise sources as shown in Table 4.9.H and Table 4.9.I, below.

Table 4.9.H: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Land Use1 Outdoor Activity Areas2 Interior Spaces Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB2
Residential 65 45 -
Transient Lodging 65 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls - - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 - 45
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Source: General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014). 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB = decibels
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Table 4.9.I: Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
Source: General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014). 1 The Planning and Development Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB. dB = decibels
dBA = A-weighted decibels
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -12 • Policy NS-1-b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 4.9.H. • Policy NS-1-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 4.9.H as conditions of permit approval.
• Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
○ Façades with substantial weight and insulation;
○ Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; ○ Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
○ Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
○ Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; ○ Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
• Policy NS-1-i: Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial, or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 4.9.H and 4.9.I to determine impacts and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 4.9.H and

4.9.I as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include:

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-13 ○ The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
○ Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; ○ Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; ○ Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and ○ Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. • Policy NS-1-j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update. • Policy NS-1-m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise-sensitive land uses.
• Policy NS-1-o: Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers.

Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.

City of Fresno Municipal Code. Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. The following portions of the Municipal Code are applicable to the proposed project.

SEC. 10‐102. Definitions. (b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -14 the noise level is averaged over a period of 15 minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made.

Where the ambient noise level is less than that designated in this section, the noise level specified in Table 4.9.J shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.

Table 4.9.J: Ambient Noise Levels
District Time Sound Level Decibels
Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
Commercial 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60
Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial anytime 70
Source: Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations) (City of Fresno, 2022).

SEC. 10‐105. Excessive Noise Prohibited. No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
a. Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. b. Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound. c. Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. d. Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.

SEC. 10‐109. Exceptions. The provisions of this article shall not apply to:
a. Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. b. Emergency work.
c. Any act or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-15

4.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to noise and vibration that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures, if required. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less than significant level.

Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

4.9.3.1 Significance Criteria
The thresholds for impacts related to noise used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to noise if it would:

Threshold 4.9.1 Generate 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;
Threshold 4.9.2 Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or Threshold 4.9.3 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

4.9.3.2 Project Impacts
The following discussion describes the potential impacts related to noise that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Threshold 4.9.1 Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? The following sections describe the short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts associated with the proposed project.

Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from 1 day to several days, depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -16 Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.9.K lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.
4 Table 4.9.K: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
at 50 Feet1
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006).

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

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 4.9.K, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet. 4 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

January. Washington, D.C.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-17 In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table 4.9.K is used to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation:


 

 += − 50
log20.).log(10..)( D
eq FULEequipL
where: Leq (equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period
E.L. = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 feet
U.F. = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time
D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Using the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:

Using the equations from the methodology above, the reference information in Table 4.9.K, and the construction equipment list provided, the composite noise level of the two loudest pieces of equipment for each construction phase was calculated. The project construction composite noise levels at a distance of 50 feet for would range from 74 dBA Leq to 84 dBA Leq, with the highest noise levels occurring during the grading phase.

Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:

In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.

To determine the applicable distance, the acoustical average distance is utilized. The acoustical average distance is used to represent noise sources that are mobile or distributed over an area. The average acoustical distance is calculated by multiplying the shortest distance between the receiver and the noise source area by the farthest distance, and then taking the square root of the product.

While construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use to the south would reach an average noise level of 64 dBA Leq during daytime hours. While construction-related, short-term noise levels have the 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBL IC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -18 potential to be higher than quieter daytime ambient noise levels in the project area under existing conditions, the construction noise impacts would be approximately 1.7 dBA greater than the existing average daytime noise level of 64.7 dBA Leq during the allowable hour of construction. When logarithmically combined with the existing average ambient noise level, the total noise level would be 66.2 dBA Leq resulting in an increase of 3.9 dBA Leq. Because the increase would be less than 5 dBA, construction noise would be considered less than significant.

Consistent with the applicable noise provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, construction work would only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction work would take place on Sundays.

Although the project’s potential construction-related noise level increase would be less than 5 dBA, project construction noise would result in a potentially significant impact at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity during construction.

Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts. The following sections address possible noise level increases in the project vicinity resulting from implementation of the proposed project, including mobile and stationary noise sources. Mobile noise sources include traffic noise. Stationary noise sources include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, parking lot activities, and truck delivery and truck unloading activities.

Traffic Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers. The guidelines included in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) were used to evaluate highway traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Table 4.9.L provides the traffic noise levels for the existing with and without project, and opening year with and without project scenarios. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

The without and with project scenario traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix M).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-19 Table 4.9.L: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project Roadway Segment
Existing Existing With Project Opening Year Opening Year with Project Year 2035 Year 2035 With Project ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Existing
Conditions
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Near-Term
Conditions
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of Nearest
Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Near-Term
Conditions
Marks Avenue between Belmont
Avenue and Nielsen Avenue
10,190 72.8 11,228 73.9 1.1 10,938 73.1 11,976 74.1 1.0 11,651 73.4 12,689 74.4 1.0 Marks Avenue between Nielsen
Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
11,554 73.3 12,146 74.2 0.9 12,408 73.6 13,000 74.5 0.9 13,244 73.9 13,836 74.8 0.9 Marks Avenue between Ray
Johnson Drive and SR-180
Westbound Ramps
12,019 73.5 12,611 74.4 0.9 12,933 73.8 13,525 74.7 0.9 13,706 74.1 14,298 74.9 0.8 Belmont Avenue between Marks
Avenue and Hughes Avenue
7,240 71.0 7,550 71.8 0.8 7,905 71.3 8,215 72.1 0.8 8,846 71.8 9,156 72.6 0.8 Nielsen Avenue between Marks
Avenue and Hughes Avenue
1,614 64.0 2,230 66.1 2.1 1,767 64.4 2,383 66.4 2.0 1,772 64.4 2,388 66.4 2.0 Hughes Avenue between Nielsen
Avenue and Belmont Avenue
2,604 66.3 3,060 67.6 1.3 2,796 66.6 3,252 67.9 1.3 3,531 67.6 3,987 68.8 1.2 Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2022).

Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.

Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL= Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
SR = State Route
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -20 This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-21 Table 4.9.L shows that the increase in project-related traffic noise would be no greater than

2.1 dBA. Noise level increases less than 3.0 dBA are not considered perceptible to most people in an outdoor environment. In addition, as shown in Table 4.9.D above, existing daily noise levels along West Nielsen Avenue near the existing sensitive receptors range from 67.6 dBA CNEL to

68.1 dBA CNEL. Because noise levels would increase less than 3.0 dBA, this is consistent with General Plan Policy NS-1-j: Significance Threshold which states that an increase of 3 dBA CNEL or more is considered significant. As such, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on offsite sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Stationary Operational Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers. Noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project must comply with the noise standards specified in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code, as described above. Adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise impacts from the proposed HVAC equipment, truck deliveries, and loading and unloading activities. The potential noise impacts to off-site sensitive land uses from the proposed operations are discussed below. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that operations would occur equally during all hours of the day and that half the 192 loading docks would be active at all times. Additionally, the analysis assumed that within any given hour, 48 heavy trucks would maneuver to park near or back into one of the proposed trailer parking stalls. HVAC equipment is expected to run continuously for the duration of a 24-hour period. To determine the future noise impacts from project operations to the noise sensitive uses, the 3D noise model, SoundPLAN, was used for the evaluation. The model incorporates the site topography as well as the shielding from the proposed building onsite. The model output, which includes a graphic representation of the operational noise impacts is presented in the attachment of the Noise Impact Analysis. Results from the model analysis for each of the anticipated stationary sources are summarized below.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment. it is estimated that the project would have four rooftop HVAC units on each of the proposed buildings to provide ventilation to the proposed office and warehouse spaces. The analysis assumes that the HVAC equipment would operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 87 dBA SPL or 72 dBA Leq at 5 feet, based on manufacturer data.5

Truck Deliveries and Truck Loading and Unloading Activities. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 feet based on measurements taken by LSA.6 Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading docks. During this process, noise would be associated with the truck engine, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise sources would occur for a short period of time (less than 5 minutes). After a truck enters the loading dock, the doors would be closed, and the remainder of the truck loading activities would be enclosed and therefore much less perceptible. To present a conservative assessment, the model analysis assumes that 5 Trane. Fan Performance - Product Specifications RT-PRC023AU-EN. 6 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2016. Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -22 unloading activities would occur at half of the 192 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour. Maximum noise levels that occur during the docking process were measured to be 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 20 feet.7 Table 4.9.M shows the modeled combined hourly noise levels generated by the proposed project at the closest off-site land uses. The project-related hourly noise level impacts would be 58.2 dBA Leq at the outdoor activity area of the residence south of Building 1. When propagated to the outdoor activity area of the residential property south of Building 1, the average daytime noise level is 56.8 dBA Leq and the average nighttime noise level is 53.6 dBA Leq. As specified in the City’s Noise Element, if existing ambient noise level exceed the City’s noise standards, a project impact would occur when project related noise levels cause a 5 dBA or more increase. When compared to existing noise levels, project operations would not create an impact during daytime hours, but would generate an increase of greater than 5 dBA during nighttime hours, resulting in a significant impact.

Table 4.9.M: Hourly Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Daytime
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Existing
Nighttime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA
Leq)
Daytime
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Increase
(dBA Leq)
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact?
(Daytime /
Nighttime)1
Residential South 56.8 53.6 58.2 3.8 5.9 No / Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
1 Because ambient noise levels exceed the City of Fresno’s stationary noise criteria, a potential operational noise impact would occur if operational noise would increase ambient noise by 5 dBA or more. dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent noise level
Table 4.9.N shows the modeled maximum exterior noise levels. The maximum noise levels generated would approach 66.5 dBA Lmax at the surrounding sensitive receptors. This noise level would be below the City’s exterior maximum daytime noise standard of 70 dBA Lmax but would exceed the 60 dBA Lmax for nighttime hours. Similar to the hourly noise impacts, project operations would not generate a significant impact related to maximum noise levels during daytime hours but would generate a significant impact during nighttime hours.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential impacts related to loading dock and delivery noise by prohibiting loading dock activities at the loading dock doors and trailer parking activities south of Building 1 during nighttime hours. Loading dock and parking activities at all other locations would be shielded by the proposed buildings and would not exceed the City’s nighttime noise standards.
7 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2016. Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-23 Table 4.9.N: Maximum Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Project
Maximum
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
Daytime
Maximum Noise
Level Standard
(dBA Lmax)
Nighttime
Maximum Noise
Level Standard
(dBA Lmax)
Potential Operational
Noise Impact?
(Daytime / Nighttime)1
Residential South 66.5 70 60 No / Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Lmax = maximum noise level
With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient stationary source 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.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 All loading dock activities shall be prohibited at the loading dock doors on the south end of Building 1 during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) or once operational, the project proponent shall provide documentation to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department that demonstrates that nighttime loading dock activities would comply with the noise level specifications of the City’s Municipal Code.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI2. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -24 Threshold 4.9.2 Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Ground vibration generated by construction equipment and transportation sources spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. The effects of ground vibration can vary from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage.

The following sections describe the potential short-term construction and long-term operational groundborne vibration impacts associated with the proposed project.

Short-Term Vibration Impacts. This construction vibration impact analysis assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best for characterizing potential for damage.

Table 4.9.O shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from the construction vibration source. As shown in Table 4.9.O, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (expected to be used for this project) generate 0.089 PPV in/sec or 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the FTA Manual. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project setback line).

The formulae for vibration transmission are provided below, and Table 4.9.P, provides a summary of off-site construction vibration levels.

LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 feet) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
Based on the information provided in Table 4.9.O, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.068 PPV in/sec at the surrounding structures and would be below the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold.

Based on the information provided in Table 4.9.Q, vibration levels are expected to approach 85 VdB at the closest industrial uses north of the project site and 68 VdB at the closest residential use to the south, which are below the 90 VdB and 78 VdB annoyance threshold for workshop or industrial types uses and for daytime residential uses, respectively.

Because construction activities are regulated by the City’s Code of Ordinance that states temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities are not allowed between the 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, vibration impacts would not occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-25 Table 4.9.O: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment
Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. 2 Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site. µin/sec = microinches per second
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Table 4.9.P: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet) 2 Vibration Level (PPV) Residential Uses (South)

0.089
110 0.010
Industrial Uses (North) 30 0.068
Industrial Uses / Cemetery (East) 120 0.009
Industrial Uses (West) 300 0.002
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures
ft = foot/feet
in/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -26 Table 4.9.Q: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet) 2 Vibration Level(VdB) Residential Uses (South)
87 110 68
Industrial Uses (North) 30 85
Industrial Uses / Cemetery (East) 120 67
Industrial Uses (West) 300 55
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022). 1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses
ft = foot/feet
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Other building structures surrounding the project site are farther away and would experience further reduced vibration. Therefore, no construction vibration impacts would occur.

Long-Term Vibration Impacts. Once operational, the proposed project would not generate vibration levels related to on-site operations. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.9.3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest airports include the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 0.8 mile from the project site, the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 6.7 miles from the project site, and the Fresno International Airport, located approximately 7.1 miles from the project site. Each of these airports is included in the Fresno County ALUCP, which guides approximate compatible land uses. The City of Fresno General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP. The ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. The project site is not located in the ALUCP; therefore, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» 4.9-27

4.9.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
For the topic of noise, the scope for assessing cumulative impacts encompasses past, current, or probable future projects under review by the City and within proximity to the project site, as well as applicable planning level documents that affect the transportation network (i.e., land use assumptions from the General Plan that would increase trips on area roadways, thereby increasing traffic noise).

Based on the traffic forecasts shown in Table 4.9.L above, in future year 2035, cumulative project trips would represent a small increase in noise levels, up to approximately 2.0 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed the 3 dBA increase considered to be perceptible by the human ear in an outdoor environment.

Given the small increase in noise levels generated by the proposed project and future cumulative projects that would be implemented in the project vicinity on the transportation network and the anticipated increase in traffic noise anticipated in the vicinity, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in transportation-related noise.

A significant cumulative impact would also occur if implementation of the proposed project would combine with other cumulative development projects to result in any permanent increase of 3 dBA or more in ambient noise levels at the existing sensitive receptors in the project site vicinity that are currently exposed to noise levels above the City’s normally acceptable threshold for that type of land use. As discussed above, long-term operation of the proposed project would not create a significant increase in stationary source noise, including noise associated with HVAC equipment and truck deliveries and truck loading and unloading activities with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Because cumulative development projects are not located immediately adjacent to the project site, permanent increases in noise generated by these projects would not combine with the noise levels generated by the proposed project to create a cumulatively considerable increase in ambient noise levels, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project would not result in adverse noise impacts from construction activities. Although the proposed project may be under construction at the same time as one or more cumulative development projects, each project would be required to implement similar measures as those identified in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 in order to ensure that construction noise levels are reduced to the extent feasible and to ensure that construction activities comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. In addition, construction-related noise impacts would be temporary and would no longer occur once construction of each project is completed. Therefore, construction activities would not be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the total noise environment in the project site vicinity, and this impact would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI2. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.9 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.9 Noise.docx «02/21/23» -28 This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-1

4.10 TRANSPORTATION
This section describes the existing transportation network of the project site and evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed project, both at the individual and cumulative levels.

The analysis in this section is based on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) 1 prepared by LSA, which is
included in Appendix M.

4.10.1 Environmental Setting

4.10.1.1 Roadway Network
Within the City of Fresno, all major roadways are classified based on the Major Street Circulation Diagram provided in the Mobility and Transportation Element of the City of Fresno General Plan.

Following is a brief description of major roadways within the study area for the proposed project:
• Marks Avenue: Marks Avenue is designated as an arterial in the City’s General Plan. Within the study area, Marks Avenue is a 4‐lane divided roadway. The City’s General Plan requires bike lanes and sidewalks for arterials. Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of Marks Avenue within the study area, and paved sidewalks are present intermittently on both sides of Marks Avenue. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area. • Belmont Avenue: Belmont Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue, Belmont Avenue is a 4‐lane undivided roadway.

The City’s General Plan requires bike lanes and sidewalks for collector streets. There are no bike facilities along either direction of this segment, and paved sidewalks are present intermittently on both sides of Belmont Avenue. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.
• Nielsen Avenue: Nielsen Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue, Nielsen Avenue is a 2‐lane undivided roadway with a two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL). The City’s General Plan requires bike lanes and sidewalks for collector streets. Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of Nielsen Avenue within the study area, and no sidewalks are currently present on either side of Nielsen Avenue. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.
• Hughes Avenue: Hughes Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue, Hughes Avenue is a 2‐lane undivided roadway.

The City’s General Plan requires bike lanes and sidewalks for collector streets. There are no bike facilities along either direction of this segment, and paved sidewalks are present intermittently on the west side of Hughes Avenue. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.
1 LSA, 2021. Traffic Impact Study 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse Project, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. November.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -2

4.10.1.2 Bicycle Facilities
According to the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan, the bikeway network within the City is classified into four categories:
• Class I – Bike Paths: Class I bikeways provide bicycle travel on a paved right‐of‐way completely separated from any street or highway.
• Class II – Bike Lanes: Class II bikeways provide a striped and stenciled lane for one‐way travel on a street or highway.
• Class III – Bike Routes: Class III bikeways provide for shared use with motor vehicle traffic and are identified only by signing.
• Class IV – Separated Bikeways: Class IV bikeways are physically separated bikeway facilities distinct from the sidewalks and designated for exclusive use of the bikers.

Currently, Class II bike lanes exists along Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue within the study area.

Proposed future Class II bike lanes will be added along the Belmont Avenue and Hughes Avenue within the study area.

4.10.1.3 Pedestrian Facilities
The implementation of enhanced pedestrian linkage with a comprehensive trails system links residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. Safe and attractive sidewalks and walkways improve the walkability of the City. Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of the streets throughout the City.

Additionally, standard paved trails and non‐standard unpaved trails are frequently used by cyclists and pedestrians in the City. The existence of trails and sidewalks provides accessible facilities, provides safety features and improves walkability in the City.

Paved sidewalks are present intermittently on both sides of Belmont Avenue and Marks Avenue.

Sidewalks are proposed on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, Belmont Avenue, and Hughes Avenue within the study area. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the project will be constructing sidewalks along the project frontage on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue.

4.10.1.4 Transit Facilities
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the Transportation Service Agency within the City and is responsible for coordinating transit services within its service area. FAX provides services via Route 1/Q (Bus Rapid Transit) as well as 17 other routes throughout the City and four routes for Clovis Transit. There are currently no transit routes present within the study area.

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
The following federal, State, regional, and local transportation plans, policies, and regulations guide transportation planning in Fresno.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-3

4.10.2.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a major agency of the United States Department of Transportation. In partnership with State and local agencies, the FHWA carries out federal highway programs to meet the nation’s transportation needs. The FHWA administers and oversees federal highway programs to ensure that federal funds are used efficiently.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Titles I, II, III, IV, and V of the ADA have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 12101. Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and nonprofit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Standards for Accessible Design, which establish minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility.

Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is an authority that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. The FTA is funded by Title 49 of the United States Code, which states the FTA’s interest in fostering the development and revitalization of public transportation systems. The FTA invests approximately $12 billion annually to support and expand public transit.

4.10.2.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Act of 2006) and Senate Bill 375. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to levels presented in the year 1990 by 2020. In response, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for creating guidelines for this act. In 2008, CARB adopted its proposed Scoping Plan, which included the approval of Senate Bill (SB) 375 as a means of achieving regional transportation-related GHG targets. SB 375 provides guidance on how curbing emissions from cars and light trucks helps the State comply with AB 32.

Established through CARB, SB 375 lists four major components and requirements: (1) it requires regional GHG emissions targets; (2) it requires creating a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting the regional targets; (3) it requires that regional housing elements and transportation plans be synchronized on 8-year schedules; and (4) it requires transportation and air pollutant emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

Assembly Bill 1358 (Complete Streets). The California Complete Streets Act requires general plans updated after January 30, 2011, to include Complete Streets policies so that roadways are designed to safely accommodate all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, as well as motorists. The goal of this act is to encourage cities to rethink policies that emphasize automobile circulation and prioritize motor vehicle improvements and come up with creative solutions that emphasize all modes of transportation. Complete Streets roadways allow for more transportation options, more non-single-occupancy vehicles, and less 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -4 traffic congestion. Additionally, increased transit ridership, walking, and biking can reduce air pollution while improving the overall travel experience for road users.

While there is no standard for a Complete Streets design, it generally includes one or more of the following features: bicycle lanes, wide shoulders, well-designed and well-placed crosswalks, crossing islands in appropriate mid-block locations, bus pullouts or special bus lanes, audible and accessible pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, center medians, street trees, planter strips, and groundcover.

Senate Bill (SB) 743. On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and codified a process that changed transportation impact analysis as part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. SB 743 directs the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to administer new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes automobile vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestions from CEQA transportation analysis. Rather, it requires the analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or other measures that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” to be used as a basis for determining significant impacts to circulation in California. The goal of SB 743 is to appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to reducing GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and promote public health through active transportation.

Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Caltrans’ “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies”2 provides general guidance regarding the preparation of traffic impact studies for projects that may have an impact on the State Highway System. The guidance includes when a traffic study should be prepared and the methodology to use when evaluating operating conditions on the State highway system.

The “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies” states, “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on state highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” In accordance with this recommendation, consultation with Caltrans staff indicated that Caltrans would be willing to consider LOS D at the LOS D/E threshold when improvements become infeasible for State facilities.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies also states that where “an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing [measure of effectiveness (MOE)] should be maintained.”

4.10.2.3 Regional Regulations
Fresno County Council of Governments. The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) is a voluntary association of local governments and a regional planning agency comprising 16 member jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno. The members are represented by a Policy Board consisting of mayors of each incorporated city and the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, or their designated elected official. The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), composed of the Chief 2 California Department of Transportation. 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

December.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-5 Administrative Officer of each member agency, assists the Board in its decision-making process.

Others involved in the decision process include expert staff from member agencies, citizen and interest groups, and other stakeholders. The Fresno COG’s purpose is to establish a consensus on the needs of the Fresno County area and further action plans for issues related to the Fresno County region. The current regional transportation plan, known as the Fresno County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2042), was adopted in 2018. The RTP addresses GHG emissions reductions and other air emissions related to transportation, with the goal of preparing for future growth in a sustainable way. The plan specifies how funding will be sourced and financed for the region’s planned transportation investments, ongoing operations, and maintenance. The goals, objectives, and policies of the RTP are established to direct the courses of action that will provide efficient, integrated multi-modal transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people, including accessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and freight, while fostering economic prosperity and development, and minimizing mobile sources of air pollution. They are organized into six broad transportation mode-based categories: general transportation; highways, streets, and roads; mass transportation; aviation; active transportation; and rail.

4.10.2.4 Local Regulations
City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines). In June 2020, the City adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines to address VMT to be effective on July 1, 2021, as required by SB 743. The City’s document serves as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analyses consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Project applicants are required to follow the guidance provided in the City’s document for preparation of CEQA VMT analysis. The document includes the following:
• Definition of region for VMT analysis;
• Standardized screening methods for VMT threshold compliance data; • Recommendations for appropriate VMT significance thresholds for development projects, transportation projects, and plans; and
• Feasible mitigation strategies applicable for development projects, transportation projects, and plans.

City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines. The City of Fresno adopted Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines in October 2006, which were updated in February 2009. The Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines establish general procedures and requirements for the preparation of traffic impact studies associated with development within the City of Fresno. The guidelines are intended as a checklist for study preparers to be sure they have not missed any regular study items.

City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan. The City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), adopted in March 2017, provides a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in Fresno.

The ATP supersedes the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan that was adopted in 2010. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -6 serves all residents of Fresno. This plan lays out specific goals to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity in Fresno. These goals include the following:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; • Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities; • Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and • Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.

City of Fresno General Plan. The City of Fresno’s General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element includes objectives and policies that work to create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes. The following policies related to transportation are applicable to the proposed project:
• Policy MT-1-d: Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods.
• Policy MT-2-b: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system. • Policy MT-2-g: Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management. Pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system.
• Policy MT-2-i: Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements.
• Policy MT-2-m: Use VMT analysis for CEQA. Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the criteria for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Senate Bill 743. Level of Service (LOS) may still be used for planning purposes and implementation of Capital Improvement Projects; however, VMT shall be used for determining mitigation under CEQA beginning in July of 2020.
• Policy MT-5-d Pedestrian Safety: Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety. Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-7 vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections.
• Policy MT-8-d: Coordination of Transportation Modes. Plan, design, and implement transportation system improvements promoting coordination and continuity of transportation modes and facilities, such as shared parking or park and ride facilities at Activity Centers.

4.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to transportation that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures, if required. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less than significant level.

Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

4.10.3.1 Significance Criteria
The thresholds for impacts related to transportation used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to transportation if it would:

Threshold 4.10.1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
Threshold 4.10.2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);
Threshold 4.10.3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
Threshold 4.10.4 Result in inadequate emergency access.

4.10.3.2 Project Impacts
The following discussion describes the potential impacts related to transportation that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Threshold 4.10.1 Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
While LOS analysis is no longer a criterion of significance for traffic impacts under CEQA, the City of Fresno General Plan includes policies that utilize LOS to determine project conditions of approval. As such, this analysis includes LOS impacts while VMT impacts are discussed in Response b) below. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -8 Based on the City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element, the City uses Traffic Impact Zone (TIZ) boundaries within the City to identify acceptable LOS for each TIZ. The majority of the study area is within TIZ III, or along the border of TIZ II and TIZ III. TIZ II has a LOS standard of E, while TIZ III has an LOS standard of D. Therefore, as a conservative estimate, LOS D was considered as the minimum LOS criterion for all intersections. As such, an operational deficiency occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition (deterioration from LOS A through D to LOS E or F) for intersections or when the project contributes to an existing or forecasted deficiency. The project needs to identify improvements to improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable level.

For intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans considers an acceptable LOS to be between LOS C and D at all intersections (delay of 45 seconds at signalized intersections and delay of 30 seconds at unsignalized intersections).

Caltrans does not have any operational deficiency criteria for study intersections. Therefore, an operational deficiency occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition (deterioration from LOS A through D to LOS E or F) for intersections or when the project contributes to an existing or forecasted deficiency. The project needs to identify improvements to improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable level.

The TIS examined traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project under the following five scenarios:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing plus Project Conditions;
• Existing plus Project and Near‐term Approved and Pending Projects Conditions; • Cumulative Year (2035) No Project Conditions; and
• Cumulative Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions.

Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday daily, AM, and PM peak-hour conditions. The AM peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The PM peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Roadway segments were analyzed using daily volume counts, and comparisons were made to the daily service volume standards provided in the City Guidelines. The study area for the TIS included the following study intersections and roadway segments.

Intersections.

1. Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno);

2. Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno);

3. Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive (City of Fresno);

4. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps (Caltrans);

5. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps (Caltrans);

6. Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno); and

7. Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-9 Roadway Segments.

1. Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue;

2. Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive;

3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps;

4. Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps;

5. Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue;

6. Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue; and

7. Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue.

In addition, Caltrans recommended evaluating the project under a worst-case scenario with 60 percent of project traffic using Caltrans’ facilities (ramps and freeway segments). This evaluation included intersections 3, 4, and 5 as listed above, as well as the following freeway basic and merge/diverge areas for the SR-180 and Marks Avenue interchange:

SR‐180 Eastbound.

1. West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Basic);

2. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Diverge);

3. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

4. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Merge);

5. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

6. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Merge); and

7. East of Marks Avenue (Basic).

SR‐180 Westbound.

1. East of Marks Avenue (Basic);

2. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Diverge);

3. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

4. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Merge);

5. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

6. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Merge); and

7. West of Marks Avenue (Basic).

Project Trip Generation. To assess potential impacts that the project may have on the surrounding roadway network, the first step was to determine project trip generation. Project trip generation is identified in Table 4.10.A based on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study. The study provides separate trip generation rates for passenger vehicles, 2–4 axle trucks, and 5+ axle trucks. The truck trips were converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips using a PCE factor of

2.0 for 2–4 axle trucks. To be conservative, a PCE factor of 3.0 was used for 5+ axle trucks. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -10 Table 4.10.A: Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation1
Average
Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour2 Weekday PM Peak Hour2
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation
Trip Generation (Cars) 1,578 75 18 93 105 24 129
Trip Generation (2–4 Axle Trucks) 146 5 2 7 8 2 10
Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks) 196 8 2 10 7 2 9
Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 342 13 4 17 15 4 19
Trip Generation (Total) 1,920 88 22 110 120 28 148
PCE Trip Generation
Trip Generation (Cars) 1,578 75 18 93 105 24 129
PCE Trip Generation (2–4 Axle Trucks)3 292 10 4 14 16 4 20 PCE Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks)3 588 24 6 30 21 6 27 PCE Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 880 34 10 44 37 10 47 PCE Trip Generation (Total) 2,458 109 28 137 142 34 176 Source: LSA (2021).
1 Rates from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, January 2019, prepared by WSP. 2 The WRCOG study does not provide in/out splits for the peak hour trip generation. Therefore, in/out splits from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) supplement Land Use 155 ‐ "High‐Cube Fulfilment Center Warehouse" have been used for obtaining in/out traffic. 3 A Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor 2.0 has been taken for 2‐4 axle trucks based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) recommendations. Further, as a conservative approach, a PCE factor of 3.0 is taken, for 5+ axle trucks, consistent with latest practices in numerous California jurisdictions.

Intersection Capacity Analysis. For all study area intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6) analysis methodologies were used to determine intersection LOS. Intersection LOS was calculated using the Synchro 10 software, which uses the HCM 6 methodologies. LOS can be determined for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Based on the results of the LOS analysis, an operational deficiency currently exists at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue. This intersection meets several signal warrants under the Existing, Existing with Project, Near‐Term Approved and Pending with Project, Cumulative Year (2035) without Project, and Cumulative Year (2035) with Project scenarios. The City of Fresno Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) fees are charged to all new developments throughout the City to mitigate the traffic operational deficiencies through the funding of traffic signal improvements to serve new developments. Based on the City of Fresno Draft City‐Wide Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee Nexus Analysis for Proposed Fee Update, dated June 2022, signalization of the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue is included in the Traffic Signal Capital Improvements, where the entire funding is expected to be generated from the TSMI fees. Therefore, since the improvement is covered under the TSMI fee program, the project would be paying into the fee program for this improvement. Therefore, the intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the implementation of the proposed improvement, and impacts to intersection LOS would be less than significant.

Roadway Segment Analysis. According to the HCM, LOS is categorized by two parameters of traffic:
uninterrupted and interrupted flow. Uninterrupted-flow facilities do not have fixed elements such as

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-11 traffic signals that cause interruptions in traffic flow. Interrupted-flow facilities do have fixed elements that cause an interruption in the flow of traffic, such as stop signs and signalized intersections along arterial roads. A roadway segment is defined as a stretch of roadway generally located between signalized or controlled intersections.

Roadway segment LOS was calculated based on the Florida LOS tables, consistent with the City Guidelines. As shown in the appendix of the TIS, the seven existing roadway segments analyzed have an LOS of C without the proposed project and an LOS of C with the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not cause any deterioration of LOS at the roadway segments analyzed.

Therefore, impacts to roadway segment LOS would be less than significant.

Transit. There are no existing dedicated transit facilities within the study area for the proposed project. The proposed project is not located in an important transit corridor in the City, and therefore it is not anticipated that the construction of additional transit facilities would be required in the study area as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially conflict with plans or policies supporting public transit or transit facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Bicycles. Currently, there are existing Class II bike lanes along Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue within the study area for the proposed project, in the vicinity of the project site. Pursuant to the City’s Active Transportation Plan, future Class II bike lanes will be added along Belmont Avenue and Hughes Avenue within the project study area to improve bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and connectivity in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with the planning and construction of bicycle facilities pursuant to the City’s Active Transportation Plan or other plans or policies supporting bicycles or bicycle facilities in Fresno. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Pedestrian Facilities. Currently, paved sidewalks are present intermittently on both sides of Belmont Avenue and Marks Avenue. Pursuant to the City’s Active Transportation Plan, the City recommends pedestrian sidewalks to be constructed on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, Belmont Avenue, and Hughes Avenue within the study area. The proposed project would construct sidewalks along the project frontage on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. Sidewalks would be constructed pursuant to City standards and would increase pedestrian access and safety in the study area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with plans and policies for pedestrian facilities in the City, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion. As described above, the addition of project traffic is not anticipated to exceed the City’s level of significance threshold of LOS (LOS D or better). In addition, the project-related traffic would not result in a deficiency to existing transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system or congestion management program.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -12 Threshold 4.10.2 Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
As discussed above, SB 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of LOS. VMT measures how much actual 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.

Heavy-duty trucks are addressed in other CEQA sections (e.g., air quality, GHGs, noise, and health risk assessment analysis) and are subject to regulation in a separate collection of rules under CARB jurisdiction.

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 criterion for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, pursuant to SB 743, to be effective as 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), published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The VMT Guidelines provides multiple screening criteria for land use projects. The project was compared with the screening criteria established in the “Project Screening” section of the VMT Guidelines to check if the project can be screened out. Following is a brief description about the project in relation with the project screening criteria:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: In accordance with SB 743, “Transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program.” A Major Transit Stop is defined as “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-13 during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A High‐Quality Transit Area or Corridor is a corridor with fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. The project is not located within a TPA. Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the project.
• Low Trip Generator: The VMT Guidelines identifies that projects generating less than 500 daily trips could also be screened out. As discussed in the project trip generation section, the project is estimated to generate 2,458 daily trips. Therefore, the project does not satisfy this screening criterion.
• Other Screening Criteria: The project is not a residential or office project; therefore, it could not be screened out using low-VMT-area maps. Additionally, it is neither an affordable housing project nor it could be classified as retail, institutional/government uses, or public service uses.

Therefore, these criteria do not apply for the project.

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

These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15 percent, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13 percent. The method of reducing GHG by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent as well. As such, pursuant to the VMT Guidelines, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted to assess the project’s VMT impact.

Thresholds of Significance. The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional thresholds set by the Fresno COG. For residential and office development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is 13 percent less than the regional average. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant environmental impact if the project-generated VMT per capita or per employee is less than 13 percent of the regional average VMT per capita or per employee. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in total VMT compared to existing total VMT for the region. For all other non-residential projects that are consistent with City’s General Plan, the adopted threshold is that a project would not have a significant environmental impact if the project’s VMT per employee is less than the existing regional average VMT per employee. If the project requires a General Plan Amendment, the project would have a less than significant environmental impact if the project-generated VMT per employee is less than 13 percent of the existing regional average VMT per employee.

VMT Analysis. A detailed VMT analysis discussion is included in Chapter 13 of the TIS (see Appendix M). As recommended in the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, projects that could not be screened out from a quantitative VMT assessment, the VMT analysis should be conducted using the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM), which is a tour-based model. Therefore, the Fresno COG ABM was used for the project VMT analysis. The model database was updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -14 The project is non-residential in nature but would not be classified as an office or retail project.

Additionally, the project does not require a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the project’s VMT per employee was compared to the existing regional average VMT per employee. The existing regional average is 25.6 VMT per employee, as established in the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. Based on the Fresno COG ABM model output, the project’s VMT was calculated to be 19.8 VMT per employee. As such, the project’s VMT per employee rate is 22.66 percent lower than the existing regional average VMT per employee, or the City’s threshold. In conclusion, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). In addition, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies, the project would be implementing multi-modal improvements along the project frontage, including the addition of sidewalks all along the project frontage.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.10.3 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project is located within the City’s Heavy Industrial zoning district, and nearby parcels to the project site consist mostly of low residential, light and heavy industrial, cemetery, and vacant, undeveloped uses. The proposed project would develop four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses into the project site. As such, the proposed use of the project site would not be incompatible with site zoning or with uses adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards.

Based on recommendations from the ATP, the proposed project would construct sidewalks along the project frontage on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. The proposed sidewalks would be constructed pursuant to City standards and would increase pedestrian access and safety in the study area. The proposed project would also include the installation of a traffic signal in the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue to meet the City’s LOS standards. This improvement would improve safety and reduce traffic conflicts in this intersection thus reducing hazards for pedestrians in the study area.

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via seven driveways located on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. All project driveways would be stop controlled at the driveway approach. Therefore, vehicles exiting the project site from project driveways must stop before they continue to merge on the neighboring circulation network, which would reduce potential hazards associated with exiting the project site.

The majority of the observed traffic flow within the study area utilizes Marks Avenue. Of the three driveways on Marks Avenue, two are right‐in‐right‐out only. For the other driveway, left‐turn egress movement will be restricted. Additionally, a TWLTL is present at this location on Marks Avenue.

Therefore, project trips using a left‐turn ingress movement can also wait in the TWLTL for the clearance of northbound traffic on Marks Avenue. Since there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue, these project trips would have the opportunity to utilize gaps in

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» 4.10-15 northbound traffic created by the signal to complete the turn into the project driveway.

Additionally, there are no major obstructions to vision present along Marks Avenue. Therefore, sight distance is not expected to be an issue for these driveways.

For project driveways located along Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue, there needs to be adequate corner sight distance for vehicles to make an egress movement. There is no provision for on‐street parking along the project frontage on Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue. Additionally, there are no trees or large stationary objects that might obstruct the sight triangle for drivers. As such, adequate sight distance will be provided at the project driveways along Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue. Therefore, it can be concluded that a clear sight triangle would be available for drivers exiting the driveway to safely make turns onto Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue.

In addition, the proposed project would not include any sharp curves or other roadway design elements that would create dangerous conditions. The project design features would be required to comply with standards set by the City’s General Plan and City Engineer. The proposed project would also be required to submit plans to the Fresno Fire Department (FFD) for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure there are no substantial hazards associated with the project design.

Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.10.4 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site via seven driveways located on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue. Additionally, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the FFD to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. Improvements identified in the TSMI fee program would provide for an enhanced roadway network that accommodates forecasted travel demand and would provide adequate emergency access in the project vicinity. As such, the proposed project would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation or FFD access to and from the project site, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

4.10.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
A proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if, in combination with other projects, it would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to transportation. The cumulative impact analysis for transportation considers the larger context of future development of the City of Fresno as envisioned by the General Plan and relied upon the projections of the General Plan and General Plan EIR, as well as development in Fresno County.

As described above under Threshold 4.10.1, the proposed project would be consistent with the plans and policies of the City as they relate to transit, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities. The TIS 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.10 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.10 Transportation.docx «02/21/23» -16 identified that all but one study intersection (Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue) and all roadway segments examined in the TIS are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under the Existing, Near‐Term Approved and Pending, and Cumulative Year (2035) scenarios. The implementation of the recommended improvement for the affected intersection would address existing traffic deficiencies. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with policies related to LOS standards and would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to LOS deficiencies in the roadway system, and a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.

VMT analysis for the proposed project identified that project VMT per employee is 22.66 percent lower than the existing regional VMT per employee. As described above, the proposed project would result in a less than significant project-level VMT impact. As such, the proposed project would also not contribute to cumulative VMT impacts in the City or County of Fresno, and a less than significant cumulative impact would occur. Although other projects would have potential to result in VMT impacts, other projects would be required to evaluate potential VMT impacts on a project-byproject basis. As the proposed project would result in a less than significant project-level VMT impact, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.

The proposed project would not include design features or incompatible uses that would create hazardous conditions in the roadway system. Additionally, the project’s design features, and emergency access would be reviewed and approved by the FFD prior to issuance of building permits.

As such, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to inadequate emergency access or incompatible or hazardous design features in the City. Other projects would also be evaluated to determine whether design features or incompatible uses would create hazardous conditions in the roadway system on a project-by-project basis; therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-1

4.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section addresses potential impacts to utilities and service systems including water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

The analysis in this section related to water supply is based on findings of the Water Supply Assessment1 prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K). The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 610, which requires public water agencies, parties, or purveyors that may supply water to certain proposed development projects to prepare a WSA for use in environmental documentation for such projects, pursuant to CEQA. The WSA contains information from the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). 2 4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The following outlines the utilities and service systems in the Fresno area and in the vicinity of the project site.

4.11.1.1 Water Purveyor and System
The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 260 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 million gallons per day (MGD), five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities. As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 acre-feet (AF) of water.

In addition to the City’s water system, there are four independent water systems located within the City limits, including Bakman Water Company, Pinedale County Water District, California State University Fresno, and Park Van Ness Mutual Water Company. These independent water systems have their own water supplies, and do not receive water from the City, with the exception of a portion of the Pinedale County Water District east of Highway 41 and south of Herndon Avenue.

The City has emergency agreements with the City of Clovis and California State University, Fresno, that provides additional water supply flexibility.

4.11.1.2 Water Demand
The City’s 2020 UWMP estimated future water demands based on land use demand factors using 2018 metered consumption data. These demand factors were applied to the 2020 land use acreage by category to develop the demand projection beginning in 2020. Demand factors for land uses that grow over time and represent new developments were assigned a lower demand factor than the demand factors for existing development. Additionally, demand factors were assumed to slowly reduce over time due to passive conservation, which includes the replacement of older water fixtures and appliances with more efficient types. Table 4.11.A shows the projected annual water use by land use type for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. 1 LSA. 2022. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project, Fresno, California. July. 2 Fresno, City of. 2021. City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -2 Table 4.11.A: Citywide Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water (acre-feet per year)
Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family 76,255 80,429 82,934 85,437 87,936
Multi-Family 19,000 20,654 21,737 22,831 23,935
Commercial1 19,052 21,135 22,587 24,041 25,496
Industrial 7,410 9,003 9,922 10,841 11,758
Landscape 4,490 5,035 5,422 5,809 6,196
Groundwater Recharge2 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500 Other3 200 200 200 200 200
Losses 10,097 10,900 11,408 11,917 12,426
Total 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Tables 4-6 and 4-7 (City of Fresno 2021).

Notes:
1 Includes industrial/governmental uses. 2 Raw water. 3 Travel meters.

As shown in Table 4.11.A, overall water demands are projected to increase from 199,204 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2025 to 241,447 AFY in 2045, an increase of approximately 21 percent. The increase in water use for industrial uses is projected to increase at a faster rate of approximately 59 percent over the same period, from 7,410 AFY in 2025 to 11,758 AFY in 2045. Based on Table 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP, industrial acreage is expected to increase from 4,500 acres in 2020 to 9,300 acres in 2056, an increase of approximately 107 percent. Demand factors for land uses that grow over time and represent new developments were assigned a lower demand factor than the demand factors for existing development.

4.11.1.3 Water Supply
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (DPU) provides potable water to the majority of the City, and some users within the portion of the Planning Area outside of the City limits. Fresno’s primary source of potable water comes from groundwater. However, in 2004 the City’s first surface water treatment facility (Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility [NESWTF]) came online and began delivering approximately 4,060 acre‐feet (AF) in 2004 to residents in northeast Fresno. By 2015, the NESWTF in combination with the T-3 Surface Water Treatment Facility (T-3 SWTF) delivered approximately 28,347 AF of treated surface water to the residents of Fresno. In 2018, the City completed construction of its new 54 millions of gallons per day (mgd) surface water treatment facility in southeast Fresno (SESWTF) and large diameter water mains that serve nearly one-half of the City. With the SESWTF operational, along with the NESWTF and T-3 SWTF, the City provided greater than 50 percent of its potable supply through using surface water.

The 2020 UWMP was adopted by the City Council in July 2021. It describes the current and planned water conservation programs, provides a water shortage contingency plan should it need to be implemented in the event of a severe water shortage or water supply emergency and a future water supply plan for a variety of water sources including treated surface water, groundwater and recycled water. Also included in the 2020 UWMP is an aggressive water conservation plan to reduce demand throughout the City’s service area. The 2020 UWMP is in accordance with the Urban Water

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-3 Management Planning Act that stipulates that every urban water supplier in California supplying water directly or indirectly to 3,000 or more customers or supplying more than 3,000 AF of water annually shall adopt and submit an Urban Water Management Plan to the California Department of Water Resources every five years. Failure to submit a plan, as required, could result in ineligibility to receive certain grants or receive drought assistance from the State.

Groundwater Supply. The City lies within the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Historically, water demand within the City has been met by extracting groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Like much of the Kings Subbasin, groundwater levels beneath Fresno were relatively shallow at 25 feet below ground surface in 1940, prior to the start of World War II. After the war, the State, including the City, began growing at a rapid rate. For the period from 1959 to 1968, it was reported groundwater levels declined at a rate of 2.8 feet per year.

Groundwater levels since 1990 have declined at a lower rate than previously, from less than 0.5 feet per year in the southwest portion of the downtown area, to a rate of 1.5 feet per year for northern and southern areas of town, to a maximum of 3 feet per year in the northeastern area.

Groundwater used by the City to meet its demands is replenished by three different methods:
• Natural recharge
• Subsurface inflow
• Intentional recharge
Based on the natural groundwater recharge (24,970 AF), subsurface inflow (47,510 AF), and intentional normal precipitation year recharge (60,000 AF), the total groundwater yield anticipated for 2020 for a normal year supply is approximately 132,480 AF. By 2045, the City anticipates that the natural groundwater recharge will increase to 26,760 AF/year, subsurface inflow will be 59,530 AF/year, and intentional groundwater recharge will increase to 73,500 AF/year due to an increase in the capacity of surface water treatment. The total groundwater yield in 2045 is expected to be approximately 159,820 AF/year.

The City currently has approximately 260 active pump stations, which pump an average of 74 mgd.

Groundwater pumping data provided by the City indicates that approximately 55,000 AF was pumped in 2020. Groundwater pumping has significantly dropped since 2003, the City’s peak year for groundwater production (i.e., 165,200 AF).

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. With the recent investments in surface water infrastructure, the City has been able to drastically reduce its groundwater pumping. The City will continue expanding their delivery and treatment of surface water supplies and groundwater recharge activities to maximize water usage.

4.11.1.4 Wastewater
Wastewater Collection System. The City of Fresno owns and maintains the majority of the wastewater collection systems that convey wastewater to the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), and all of the wastewater collection system that conveys wastewater to the North Fresno Water Reclamation Facility (NFWRF). The City’s wastewater collection system 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -4 consists of about 1,630 miles of pipes ranging in size from 4 inches in diameter to 84 inches in diameter. This collection system also utilizes 15 lift stations throughout Fresno, ranging in pumping capacity from 0.25 mgd to 2.2 mgd.

The City of Fresno commissioned a team of engineering consultants to prepare the 2006 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The master plan effort included hydraulic modeling of the wastewater collection system to evaluate system capacity for both then‐existing conditions and full build‐out conditions under the City's General Plan. A number of capacity‐deficient sewers were identified, and recommendations for capacity relief projects were developed.

The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan also incorporated the results of a number of prior sewer inspection and evaluation efforts, including recommendations for prioritized sewer rehabilitation projects, most or all of which were necessary as a result of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) activity. The master plan also included a number of trunk sewer projects and infill projects identified by the City of Fresno. The master plan incorporated all of the various types of recommended sewer projects in a Capital Improvement Program for implementation during the period from 2006 through 2025. The City of Fresno has been regularly implementing various elements of the Capital Improvement Program since the adoption of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.

As required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, the City of Fresno prepared the 2009 Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) for the Wastewater Collection System. The SSMP was revised and updated in 2014 and 2019 to reflect changes and revisions from former versions of the document.

The SSMP provides a framework for the proper management, operation, and maintenance of all elements of the wastewater collection system, with the objectives of reducing and preventing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and mitigating any SSOs that may occur. An SSO is a release of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting in public exposure, regardless of whether the wastewater reaches waters of the United States. SSOs also include wastewater backups into buildings and onto private property that are caused by blockages in the City’s portion of the sanitary sewer system.

All of the mandatory elements of the SSMP were already in place and in use by the City of Fresno through other programs and ordinances, such as the Fresno Municipal Code, the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program, the Sanitary System Overflow Prevention and Response Plan, Performance Measures and Public Information/Education opportunities. The City of Fresno operates the wastewater collection system under the SSMP and related programs and ordinances to accomplish the SSMP objectives.

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. The City Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) is located southwest of the City in the area generally bounded by Jensen, Cornelia, Central and Chateau Fresno Avenues. It provides wastewater treatment for a service area that includes most of the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, and some unincorporated areas of Fresno County.

Flows received at this facility peaked at 81,100 AFY in 2006 and have been steadily decreasing since, with the average influent flow about 63,000 AFY over the last 5 years. The RWRF includes

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-5 preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection. Secondary treatment consists of three treatment trains with an annual average capacity of 87 mgd, consisting of 30 mgd for Train A and 57 mgd for Trains B and C combined. In 2017, a 5 mgd tertiary treatment system—the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility (TTDF)—was completed. The system can be expanded to 15 mgd and ultimately to 30 mgd.

The City’s RWRF diverts a portion of the undisinfected secondary effluent to irrigate non-food crops grown adjacent to this facility. The practice of using the secondary effluent to irrigate non-food crops has been carried out for decades and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The City owns nearly 3,300 acres of land for and around the RWRF, consisting of percolation ponds (1,750 acres) and other land available to farm non-food crops.

Additionally, the RWRF produces Title 22 disinfected tertiary-treated effluent through the TTDF completed in 2017 and through tertiary-equivalent soil aquifer-treated recycled water recovered from the percolated secondary effluent. A series of 15 groundwater wells located at the RWRF are used to extract previously percolated effluent groundwater from beneath the facility. The tertiaryequivalent soil aquifer-treated recycled water (recovered groundwater) is used for on-site irrigation and transport to FID canals for delivery to customers during the irrigation season, as facilitated through an exchange agreement with FID.

Since the completion of the 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP), the City has constructed most of the southwest recycled water system. The southwest recycled water system consists of a

3.2-million-gallon recycled water reservoir located at the RWRF, a 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (8.64 mgd) recycled water pump station located at the RWRF, a 640 gpm booster pump station (Roeding Park Booster), and 15.7 miles of 10-inch to 54-inch recycled water pipeline. Roughly 7.5 miles of pipeline remain to be constructed. The City also updated the demand and distribution system from the 2010 RWMP with the 2019 Citywide Recycled Water Demand and Southwest Recycled Water System Analysis to identify potential recycled water customers.

4.11.1.5 Stormwater
Stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control for the City of Fresno, City of Clovis, and the unincorporated areas within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence are provided by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). The FMFCD is a special district created by the State of California Legislature and ratified by the voters of the district in 1956. FMFCD has more than 170 urban watersheds that collect stormwater runoff and dispose of the runoff in retention basins, local canals, or the San Joaquin River. Each urban watershed, called a drainage area by FMFCD, consists of a collection system and, in most cases, a retention basin to store and dispose of the runoff. Pipeline collection systems have diameters that range from 15 inches to 18 inches. Retention basins range in size from 5 acres to 25 acres, with most being 8 to 10 acres in size. The FMFCD drainage area for stormwater from the project site is basin “AS”, located southwest from the site. 3 3 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Exhibit A.

Website: http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/District-Wall-Map.png (accessed January 2023).
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -6 Stormwater Collection and Disposal. FMFCD provides drainage service to the Fresno metropolitan area. In order to provide this service, the FMFCD has organized the metropolitan area into over 170 urban drainage areas or watersheds. Watersheds are delineated along topographic boundaries and are limited in size to between 200 acres to 600 acres. The area limitation reduces the size of the required collection facilities and disposal facilities. Service is provided through the combination of surface drainage improvements, chiefly curbs and gutters, that direct runoff to storm drainage inlets which collect the runoff and convey the runoff to underground pipeline collection systems. The collection systems convey the stormwater to disposal facilities, which in the majority of cases are excavated, unlined basins. In three cases, the collection systems discharge to pump wet wells from which the stormwater is lifted into an adjacent canal, and in six cases, the stormwater is discharged into the San Joaquin River. Two of these systems discharge directly to the San Joaquin River and four discharge to a water quality basin before discharge to the river occurs.

The collection systems are designed to provide one foot of freeboard in the pipeline collection system designed to convey runoff rates generated by rainfall intensity up to and including a 50 percent probability of occurrence (a 2‐year return frequency). There are exceptions to this design standard in areas of the City where older drainage systems were installed prior to the formation of the FMFCD, or constructed in the very early years of the FMFCD, and shifts in land use densities have eroded the level of service. FMFCD documents the deficiencies and develops master planned solutions to these deficiencies as they are identified. The proposed project would include construction of a new curb and gutter along North Marks Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Hughes Avenue to connect to the City’s existing stormwater system.

Retention basins are designed to provide storage for up to 6 inches of rainfall on the drainage area watershed given typical runoff to rainfall ratios used for urban drainage design. There are exceptions to this design standard, notably in those retention basins constructed prior to 1969 when the design criteria were changed to increase the storage volume. The change resulted from the extreme rainfall events of the spring of 1969 and the resulting flooding at the then‐existing basins. Water quality basins are designed in accordance with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s design standards to remove sediments and trash prior to discharge of stormwater to the San Joaquin River. They provide quiescent conditions for settling of suspended solids within a holding basin prior to discharge from the basin via an overflow weir. The water quality basins alternate between wet and dry, depending on the season and amount of rainfall that has occurred within the drainage area.

FMFCD has utilized three means to implement drainage systems for the metropolitan area. One method has been to use Community Block Grants and low interest infrastructure loans from the State of California to construct drainage facilities in the older, previously developed areas of the City. A second method has been to form assessment districts under the provisions of the 1915 Bond Act. Assessment districts were formed based on drainage area boundaries, the parcels within the assessment districts were assessed a proportional share of the cost of the collection and disposal system, and the drainage system for the drainage area was constructed. The third and currently employed method is to collect drainage fees from parcels as they develop based on their prorated share of the cost of the drainage area collection and disposal systems. The implementing ordinance for the drainage fee structure is adopted by the City of Fresno, and the drainage fees are collected by the City when entitlements are granted or building permits are issued.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-7 FMFCD is a primary participant in groundwater recharge for the City of Fresno. Unlined retention basins provide recharge of both stormwater runoff and imported water from the San Joaquin River and Kings River. It is estimated that 80‐percent of the stormwater that falls within the metropolitan area is recharged via FMFCD’s retention basins. FMFCD has identified retention basins within the metropolitan area that have significant recharge capability. The City of Fresno, through a cooperative agreement, utilizes the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canal system to deliver allocated water from the San Joaquin River and the Kings River to these basins where the water infiltrates through the underlying soil strata and into the groundwater beneath the basins. FMFCD retention basins, largely in part through a cooperative agreement with the City, provide groundwater recharge for an estimated annual average of 30,000 AF of water.

Flood Control. The City of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek.

Numerous smaller, unnamed drainage courses also drain into the City from the rural areas east of the City. FMFCD provides flood control measures on the major creeks for the 0.5‐percent exceedance interval (200‐year return frequency) flood flow event with a series of dams and detention basins located east of the City. These dams include Big Dry Creek Dam, Fancher Creek Dam, and Redbank Dam. The detention basins include the Alluvial Drain Detention Basin, Pup Creek Detention Basin, Redbank Creek Detention Basin, Fancher Creek Detention Basin, and Big Dry Creek Detention Basin.

The Big Dry Creek Dam was originally constructed in 1948 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was subsequently raised and enlarged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Redbank and Fancher Creek Flood Control Project in 1993 to provide a flood pool with 30,200 AF of storage.

Redbank Creek Dam was constructed by FMFCD in 1961. It provides a gross pool storage of 1,030 AF. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also constructed the Alluvial Drain Detention Basin in 1993, the Pup Creek Detention Basin in 1993, the Redbank Detention Basin in 1990 and the Fancher Creek Dam in 1991. The Redbank and Fancher Creek Flood Control Project was a jointly funded Federal, State, and local project. FMFCD constructed the Fancher Creek Detention Basin in 2003 and recently completed the Big Dry Creek Detention Basin.

FMFCD has master planned the Dog Creek, Pup Creek, and a portion of Redbank Creek channels to convey the 0.5‐percent exceedance level flood flows within bank. The improvement of these channels will occur as funding and legal authority to proceed with the improvements are provided either through grants and purchase of right of way or through the entitlement process. Each of these channels are ephemeral streams that flow only during the latter parts of the wet season.

4.11.1.6 Solid Waste
Fresno diverts a majority of its solid waste away from landfills and into recycling and composting programs. Diversion conserves limited landfill space, keeps toxic chemicals and materials from contaminating landfills, and enhances the reuse of materials. A Council resolution commits the City to the goal of Zero Waste by the year 2025. Recycling of construction & demolition is required for 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -8 any City‐issued building, relocation or demolition permitted project that generates at least 8 cubic yards of material by volume and all waste must be hauled to a City‐approved facility.4 The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides curbside collection of residential bulky goods through operation cleanup. The solid waste division also collects through a three-cart system solid waste, recycling, green waste, as well as waste oil and waste oil filters weekly.

In 2011 the City of Fresno granted franchises for non-exclusive roll off services to 16 roll off companies for bins which were 10 cubic yards or greater. The City also granted exclusive franchise agreements for the collection of commercial solid waste, recyclables and green waste to two franchises. Allied Waste Services (formally Republic) is responsible for all commercial services north of Ashlan Avenue. Mid Valley Disposal has all commercial locations south of Ashlan. Both city and (non-exclusive) / exclusive franchise haulers provide and maintain containers; respond to customer complaints/concerns and provide roll‐off and compactor services to residential, multi‐family and commercial customers respective to their agreements. The proposed project would be serviced by Mid Valley Disposal.

Garbage disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (CARTS). 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 (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site, Site Solid Waste Information System [SWIS] Number 10‐AA‐0009) located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman. American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers.

The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for non‐hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day.5 The American Avenue Landfill 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. 6 One other active disposal site is located in Fresno County. The City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10-AA-0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.
7 4 Fresno, City of. Department of Public Utilities, Trash Disposal & Recycling, Multi-Family & Commercial Services, Construction & Demolition Waste. Website: www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposalrecycling/multi-family-commercial-services/#tab-3 (accessed September 6, 2022). 5 Fresno, City of. Department of Public Utilities, Facilities & Infrastructure, American Avenue Landfill.

Website: www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/american-avenue-landfill (accessed September 6, 2022). 6 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352, (accessed September 6, 2022). 7 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. City Of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4529?siteID=347 (accessed September 6, 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-9 Commercial green waste and organics delivered to Elm Avenue Recycling by Mid Valley are then transferred to the Kerman facility and composted with organic compost, which is then used by organic farms in the region. Commercial green waste and organics being delivered by Allied Waste are taken to Rice Road Transfer Station, which are then trans-loaded into trucks, which are delivered to Kochergen Farms for composting and land application.

4.11.1.7 Electric Power, Natural Gas and Telecommunications Electricity. The City of Fresno receives its electricity from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E provides electrical service to business and residents throughout the City via underground and above-ground service lines. PG&E owns and maintains all service and transmission lines in the City and operates several electrical substations throughout the City. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 78,518 gigawatt hours (GWh) (78,518,835,142 kilowatt-hours [kWh]).8 Total electricity consumption in Fresno County in 2020 was 8,017.8 GWh (8,017,830,742 KWh).9 Natural Gas. PG&E is the natural gas service provider in the City of Fresno. PG&E owns and maintain several natural gas transmission lines in the City that feed local distribution lines that connect to individual service lines. PG&E is the natural gas service provider for the City of Fresno. According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 4,508.5 million therms (4,508,542,540 therms).10 Total natural gas consumption in Fresno County in 2020 was 325.9 million therms (325,915,257 therms).11
Telecommunications. Several providers provide telecommunication services to the City of Fresno.

AT&T is the largest provider of cellular and fixed telephone services. Telephone lines are located throughout the City.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting

4.11.2.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulatory requirements for potable water supplies including raw and treated water quality criteria. The County would be required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulatory requirements of the CWA.

Safe Drinking Water Act. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is enforced by the EPA and sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. SDWA requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources including rivers, lakes, and groundwater.
8 CEC. 2019b. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed September 2022). 9 CEC. 2019c. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed September 2022). 10 CEC. 2019e. Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed September 2022). 11 CEC. 2019f Gas Consumption by County. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed September 2022).
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -10

4.11.2.2 State Regulations
Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, California Water Code Sections 10610 et seq., requires publicly or privately owned water suppliers that provide more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually or supply more than 3,000 customers to prepare a plan that:
• Plans for water supply and assesses reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in 5- year increments.
• Identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands, in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. • Implements conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies. Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7 [SBX7-7]), which amends the act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code Senate Bills 610 and 221, Water Supply Planning. To assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrated water and land use planning, the state passed Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and SB 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001), effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 and SB 221 improve the link between information of water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to city and county decision makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. This detailed information must be included in the administrative record as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The statutes recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments (WSA) must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA, as defined in Water Code Section 10912[a].

Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 is intended as a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs before construction begins.

The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 af of water annually should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Both SB 610 and SB 221 identify the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as a planning document that can be used by a water supplier to meet the standards in both statutes. Thorough and complete UWMPs are foundations for water suppliers to fulfill the specific requirements of these two statutes, and they are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their general plans.

Conversely, general plans are source documents as water suppliers update the UWMPs. These planning documents are linked, and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-11 Additionally, pursuant to the California Water Code Section 10632, urban water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 acre-feet per year or have more than 3,000 connections are required to prepare and adopt a standalone Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as part of its Urban Water Management Plan. A WSCP is a detailed plan on how an urban water supplier intends to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time. The WSCP is used to provide guidance by identifying response actions to allow for responsible management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought and catastrophic supply interruptions.

AB 3030, California Groundwater Management Act. The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code (AB 3030) provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop a voluntary Groundwater Management Plan in state-designated groundwater basins.

Senate Bill 1383, Short-lived Climate Pollutants. In September 2016, Governor Edmund Brown Jr. set methane emissions reduction targets for California (SB 1383 Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP). The targets must:
• Reduce organic waste disposal 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025. • Rescue for people to eat at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.

SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead collaborating with the jurisdictions located within the county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations.

California Green Building Standards Code—Part 11, Title 24 (CALGreen). CALGreen requires covered projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.

Assembly Bill (AB) 939, California Integrated Waste Management Act. California's Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires cities and counties to reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. The Local Government Construction and Demolition (C&D) Guide of 2002 (SB 1374) amended this act to include construction and demolition material. Fresno County created the County of Fresno's Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling Program to fulfill requirements under these bills.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the County of Fresno required permit applicants to submit a Waste Management Plan for approval prior to issuance of permit for projects. The Waste Management Plan required as part of Fresno County’s C&D Debris Recycling Program is designed to assist County compliance with State mandates, and to provide builders with a means of documenting the waste reduction requirements included in the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

Water Discharge Requirements. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) typically requires a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any facility or person 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -12 discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system. Those discharging pollutants (or proposing to discharge pollutants) into surface waters must obtain an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Central Valley RWQCB.

The NPDES serves as the WDR. For other types of discharges, such as those affecting groundwater or in a diffused manner (e.g., erosion from soil disturbance or waste discharges to land), a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the Central Valley RWQCB in order to obtain a WDR. For specific situations, the Central Valley RWQCB may waive the requirement to obtain a WDR for discharges to land or may determine that a proposed discharge can be permitted more effectively through enrollment in a general NPDES permit or general WDR.

4.11.2.3 Local Regulations
City of Fresno General Plan. The City of Fresno’s General Plan Public Utilities and Services Element includes objectives and policies that relate to public services. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:
• Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio.
• Policy PU-8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy. • Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.
• Policy PU-7-a: Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.
• Policy PU-7-b: Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety. • Policy PU-9-a: New Techniques. Continue to collaborate with affected stakeholders and partners to identify and support programs and new techniques of solid waste disposal, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and waste separation, to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-13 • Policy PU-9-b: Compliance with State Law. Continue to pursue programs to maintain conformance with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 or as otherwise required by law and mandated diversion goals.

4.11.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to utilities and service systems that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures, if required. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

4.11.3.1 Significance Criteria
The thresholds for impacts related to utilities and service systems used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to utilities and service systems if it would:

Threshold 4.11.1 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; Threshold 4.11.2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
Threshold 4.11.3 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;
Threshold 4.11.4 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; or
Threshold 4.11.5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.11.3.2 Project Impacts
The following discussion describes the potential impacts related to utilities and service systems that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Threshold 4.11.1 Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -14 construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, utilities required to serve the proposed project would include water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Water. Short term demand for water may occur during excavation, grading, and construction activities on-site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust mitigation purposes.

Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site would be used. Overall, short-term construction activities would require minimal water use and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water conveyance, treatment, or collection facilities with respect to construction activities. Therefore, the impacts on water facilities during construction would be less than significant.

Once operational, water service to the project site would be provided by the City. New water within the project site would connect to the existing 14-inch main located on North Marks Avenue and the 16-inch main on North Hughes Avenue. The project would also include an on-site 12-inch main.

Extension of the water infrastructure from the adjacent streets into the project site would be a routine part of the construction process analyzed in this EIR and would not have a material environmental impact. The water facility improvements would be limited to the project site and connection points to the adjacent, existing facilities. In addition, as described further in Threshold

4.11.2 below, the City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant environmental impact, and the impact would be less than significant.

Wastewater. No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of construction activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable toilet facilities, which transport waste off-site for treatment and disposal. Therefore, during construction, potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than significant.

Once operational, the City would provide wastewater collection and treatment for the proposed project, and maintains an existing 12- to 18-inch line located in West Nielsen Avenue. The proposed project includes the installation of a new on-site 8-inch wastewater line that would connect to the City’s existing line. Any sewer improvements associated with the proposed project would be designed and constructed to City standards. In addition, the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and wastewater services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. In addition, as described further in Threshold 4.11.2 below, the City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s wastewater system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-15 demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Stormwater and Drainage Facilities. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable permits and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. Compliance with applicable permit requirements and implementation of the construction BMPs would ensure that the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and the impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to hydrology during operation. The proposed project includes the construction of a new curb and gutter along North Marks Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Hughes Avenue that would connect to the existing FMFCD stormwater system. While the proposed project would permanently increase the impervious surface area in the project site, the project would maintain the overall on-site drainage patterns and continue to direct surface water to catch basins that flow into the existing storm drains. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant would be required to provide a stormwater improvement plan to the City to ensure that the stormwater system would be capable of handling a 25-year storm and that the drainage facilities conform to City requirements. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs if the City determines that the City’s storm drain system or storm drain pumping capacity requires expansion or modification as a result of the project. In addition, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the WPCP and compliance with the MS4, as specified in the Industrial General Permit, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities.

Electricity. Electrical power would be supplied to the proposed project site by PG&E. PG&E provides electrical service to business and residents throughout the City via underground and above-ground service lines. PG&E owns and maintains all service and transmission lines in the City and operates several electrical substations throughout the City. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 78,518 gigawatt hours 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -16 (GWh) (78,518,835,142 kilowatt-hours [kWh]).12 Total electricity consumption in Fresno County in 2020 was 8,017.8 GWh (8,017,830,742 KWh).13
Short-term construction activities would be limited to providing power to the staging area and portable construction equipment and would not substantially increase demand for electricity. The heavy equipment used for construction is primarily powered by diesel fuel. Given the limited nature of potential demand for electricity during construction and the availability of existing power lines on the site, there would not be a need to construct new or alter existing electric transmission facilities.

Impacts to local regional supplies of electricity would be less than significant.

The proposed project includes connections to the surrounding electrical system on-site. Existing underground utility connections provide electricity to the project site. New underground electrical lines would be installed. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 8,448,500 kWh per year. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Fresno County by approximately 0.11 percent. Because the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of electricity demand in Fresno County, the project would meet Title 24 requirements and there would be sufficient electricity supplies available, energy demand for the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, although the proposed project would require the construction of new improvements related to the provision of electricity service, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts and the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas. PG&E is the natural gas service provider in the City of Fresno. PG&E owns and maintain several natural gas transmission lines in the City that feed local distribution lines that connect to individual service lines. PG&E is the natural gas service provider for the City of Fresno. According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 4,508.5 million therms (4,508,542,540 therms).14 Total natural gas consumption in Fresno County in 2020 was 325.9 million therms (325,915,257 therms).15
Short-term construction activities would not result in demand for natural gas since construction activities/equipment would not require accessing existing adjacent natural gas facilities. Therefore, construction activities would not impact natural gas services, and the proposed project would not require new or physically altered gas transmission facilities.

Operation of the proposed project would increase on-site natural gas demand. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 161,487 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Fresno County in 12 CEC. 2019b. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed September 2022). 13 CEC. 2019c. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed September 2022). 14 CEC. 2019e. Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed September 2022). 15 CEC. 2019f Gas Consumption by County. Website: ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed September 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-17 2020 was 325,915,257 therms. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Fresno County by approximately 0.05 percent.

Because the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of electricity demand in Fresno County, the project would meet Title 24 requirements and there would be sufficient natural gas supplies available, energy demand for the proposed project would be less than significant.

Therefore, although the proposed project would require the construction of new improvements related to the provision of natural gas service, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts and the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunication Facilities. Existing telephone, cable, and internet service lines in the vicinity would serve the project site. Internal to the project site, the project applicant would be responsible for constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions for the proposed project. The reconfiguration of these facilities would occur on-site during the site preparation and earthwork phase and are not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet services off-site that serve the surrounding areas. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are generally installed concurrently with utility expansions and impacts associated with the expansion of telecommunications facilities are already considered in the air quality, noise, and construction traffic analysis. Therefore, the project impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Summary. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.11.2 Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As discussed in the WSA prepared for the proposed project, the potable demand projections in the 2020 UWMP for normal water use utilize land use-based projections. Under this methodology, existing land use and demand was accounted separately from future land use and demand. This allows different demand factors to be applied to current land use areas and future land use areas.

Future land use areas represent future customers and developments that are expected to be more water-efficient than existing land uses and buildings due to the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and use of higher-efficiency appliances and landscapes.

The existing and future land use acreage was sourced from the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database and the City’s General Plan. The existing land use shapefile and associated acreage for each land use classification were used to represent 2020 land use data. Areas not served by the City were excluded from the existing land use shapefile. The future land use shapefile corresponds with the planned land use at buildout as described in the City’s General Plan representing the year 2056. Although the City does not have any plans to serve areas currently served by others within the City limits, all areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) were assumed to be served by the City by buildout for conservative planning purposes. 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -18 The land use acreage between 2020 and 2056 was estimated in 5-year increments based on areas planned to be developed by 2030 from the City’s Planning Department, and by linearly interpolating the remainder of the change in acreage for each land use category between 2030 and 2056. Projectspecific water demand was calculated using the methodology from the 2020 UWMP, as described above, based on the following assumptions:
• The 2020 UWMP indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025; and • The 2020 UWMP indicates the projected water demand for industrial land uses in 2025 will be 7,410 AFY.

Therefore, it is assumed that industrial land uses, such as the proposed project, will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025. The total project site is 48.03 acres. Therefore, based on the assumptions identified above, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 68.2 AFY.

The project site is included in the land use area covered by the City’s 2020 UWMP and is designated as Heavy Industrial in the City’s General Plan. Land use acreages and water demand in the 2020 UWMP were based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for 2020 and buildout in 2056.

As such, the acreage associated with the proposed project was assumed Industrial in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, it is assumed that demand for water was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP.

There is no evidence, in consideration of the calculated project water demand, that such demand exceeds that estimated in the 2020 UWMP. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 UWMP.

The City has concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045.

As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.

The WSA also discusses projected supplies and demands for a normal year, single dry year, and 5- year consecutive drought in the City. The City is projected to have greater than 100,000 AF of available supply after meeting demands in normal years. During single dry years, the City’s surface water supplies and groundwater recharge of raw surface water are reduced, but all projected potable demands would be met. During a 5-year drought, the City is projected to meet all demands with existing supplies, although non-potable water used for groundwater recharge is reduced in years 3 and 4 of a 5-year drought.

The City currently balances its surface water supplies and groundwater based on minimum production for operation of the City’s water treatment facilities and minimum groundwater pumping to manage and control contamination plumes and prevent their spread. The minimum operation conditions typically occur in the low-demand winter months, and the City can increase surface water production during peak-demand months when surface water is available. In normal and wet years, the City intends to rely on more surface water supply and recharge raw surface water to replenish the groundwater basin and build storage for dry years. In dry years, when surface water

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-19 is less available, the City will ramp up well production to meet demands. The City is expected to continue this supply management strategy in the future.

Additionally, the City’s WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City’s governing body and staff and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought and catastrophic supply interruptions. The WSCP, applicable to the entire City of Fresno municipal water service area, is fully applicable to the project and protective of the adequacy of the project’s water supply.

As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water supply and there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.11.3 Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater collection and treatment services in Fresno are provided by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. The City’s wastewater collection system consists of about 1,630 miles of pipes ranging in size from 4 inches in diameter to 84 inches in diameter. This collection system also utilizes 15 lift stations throughout Fresno, ranging in pumping capacity from 0.25 million gallons per day (mgd) to 2.2 mgd. The City is served by two wastewater treatment plants: Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility.

The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and wastewater services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. As such, the City’s wastewater provider would be able to provide service to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.11.4 Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
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.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -20 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.16
Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill (City of Clovis Landfill 10-AA0004) 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 2047.17 Based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, Appendix C), operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 847 tons of solid waste per year or approximately 2 tons of solid waste per day. Given the available capacity at the landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs. The proposed project would not 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 and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.11.5 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, the Fresno County C&D Debris Recycling Program, which is intended to assist the County in achieving AB 939 solid waste reduction goals, and other applicable federal, State and local solid waste statutes and/or regulations related to solid waste. In addition, as described above, the proposed project would not 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. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact.

4.11.3.3 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for utilities and service systems. The project site consists of a vacant urban lot located in a primarily urban area with existing services provided by utility providers in the vicinity. The cumulative area for utilities is listed below for each individual utility provider.
16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» 4.11-21 Water Supply. As discussed above and in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, water supply is a regional issue. The Kings Subbasin is in overdraft condition due to pumping for agricultural and urban uses. Growth in the subbasin will increase demands for groundwater pumping, potentially resulting in continued drawdown of water levels leading to localized cones of depression, changes in groundwater flow direction, concentration of contaminants, and land subsidence. However, the WSA prepared for the proposed project identified that projected water supplies available for the City would be adequate to accommodate future development in the City of Fresno, including development of the proposed project, for normal, single-year dry, and multiple-year dry conditions.

Additionally, implementation of water supply management strategies from the City’s 2020 UWMP and the City’s WSCP would secure the efficient management of water supplies in the City during regular and dry years. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project and future projects consistent with the General Plan and the City’s water management plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively significant impact on water supply or facilities.

Wastewater. Public utility districts and other municipalities exist near or adjacent to the planning area and include the City of Clovis, the Pinedale Public Utility District, Pinedale County Water District, and Malaga Utility District. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. Other past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area would also be subject to Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. For these reasons, the proposed project and related projects would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to wastewater generation.

Solid Waste. The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of solid waste infrastructure is the City of Fresno. Development associated with the proposed project would contribute to an increased demand for landfill capacity for solid waste. As stated previously, 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. In addition, the Clovis Landfill 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. As discussed above, given the available capacity at the landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. Furthermore, based on their current daily maximum permitted disposal capacities and current average daily tonnage, there is currently sufficient permitted capacity provide adequate future capacity for the City’s solid waste needs.

In addition, all development projects would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), every city and county in the State is required to divert 50 percent of solid waste generated in its jurisdiction away from landfills. Implementation of source reduction measures, such as recycling, would serve to divert solid waste away from landfills.

Cumulative development would be required to comply with existing statutes and regulations, and 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023

4.11 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «02/21/23» -22 therefore, cumulative impacts related to compliance with solid waste regulations would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Electricity and Natural Gas. Development of cumulative projects within the PG&E service area which encompasses 70,000 square miles would result in a substantial increase in electricity and natural gas demand as well as an increase in the consumption of fuel for vehicles. Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in demand for electricity, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of new electric or natural gas infrastructure beyond what has already been assumed and will be included in PG&E’s regional forecasts.

As discussed previously, the total annual electricity consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 78,518 GWh (78,518,835,142 kWh). As shown in Table 4.5.B, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 8,448,500 kWh per year.

Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in the PG&E service area by approximately 0.01 percent. As such, the proposed project’s share of cumulative electricity consumption would negligible.

Total natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area in 2020 was 4,508.5 million therms (4,508,542,540 therms). As shown in Table 4.5.B, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 161,487 therms per year. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual natural gas consumption in the PG&E service area by less than 0.01 percent. The proposed project’s share of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the PG&E service area would be negligible.

In addition, as identified above, in 2021, a total of 50 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy.18 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017, and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.

Telecommunications. The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of telecommunication facilities is the City. Telephone, cable, and internet services are provided to residents through private providers of these services. The construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities for the proposed project would occur on-site and is not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet services off-site that serve the surrounding areas. Likewise, construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities would generally occur on-site to extend through proposed related developments. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. 18 PG&E, 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/ what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed October 2022).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) 5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would “feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project.” An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason.” The proposed project would include the construction of four office/warehouse buildings in the City of Fresno, which would be developed over a period of 24 months. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet. The proposed project has been described and analyzed in Chapter 4.0 with an emphasis on determining and evaluating potential significant impacts resulting from the project and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The following identifies and discusses two feasible alternatives to the proposed project, compares the impacts of each alternative to the impacts of the project, and determines whether the alternatives meet the basic project objectives and avoid or reduce project-related significant impacts.

5.1 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. When selecting a set of alternatives to analyze, Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines also discusses the consideration of alternative locations and determining whether any of the significant effects of a proposed project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.

Based on the criteria listed above, two alternatives have been selected to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the alternatives considered in this Draft EIR include the following:
• No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would continue to be vacant. No modifications to existing site access or infrastructure would occur. • Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the size of Building 1 to 250,956 square feet and the project total square footage would be reduced to 683,582 square feet. The building would have similar site access and infrastructure improvements as those identified for the proposed project.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -2

5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

5.2.1 Project Characteristics
The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet. The buildings’ exterior would be up to 44 feet high with an interior height of up to 36 feet and designed with a total of 201 loading dock doors on the north and south sides of the buildings. The four buildings would be comprised of the following: Building 1 would be 468,812 square feet and would provide 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would be 248,786 square feet and would provide 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would be 93,074 square feet and would provide 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would be 90,766 square feet and would provide 15 loading dock doors.

5.2.2 Project Objectives
Each alternative is analyzed to determine whether it achieves the basic objectives of the proposed project. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to:
• Provide industrial warehousing consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfil the unmet demands of industrial businesses located in the City; • Support new employment opportunities for the residents of Fresno and surrounding communities;
• Develop new industrial businesses in proximity to major transportation infrastructure and similar type of businesses to minimize land use conflicts with surrounding existing uses; and • Promote sustainable development and operations, to the extent practicable.

5.2.3 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
As described in Chapter 4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, impacts in the following areas would be potentially significant without the implementation of mitigation measures but would be reduced to a less than significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this report are implemented: Section 4.1 Aesthetics; Section 4.2 Air Quality; Section 4.3 Biological Resources; Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources; Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Section 4.9 Noise. The project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.

The project’s environmental impacts under all of the remaining resource topics (Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forest Resources; Energy; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Utilities and Service Systems; and Wildfire) would be less than significant and would not require mitigation or an alternative that would reduce these impacts. Therefore, these resource topics are not discussed further in this chapter unless an alternative has the potential to result in a significant impact on a resource that would not be significantly affected by the proposed project.

The project’s significant impacts, which have been used to evaluate alternatives, are summarized below.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) 5-3

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an EIR to identify and briefly discuss any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. The City considered certain alternatives during the preparation of this EIR and found them to be infeasible.

The following provides a description of potential alternatives that were identified and considered by the City, and the reasons why they were ultimately not selected for further evaluation in this EIR. In dismissing these alternatives from detailed evaluation in this EIR, primary considerations were whether the alternatives would meet most of the project objectives, or whether the alternatives were feasible, or whether they would reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project.

5.3.1 Develop Residential Uses on the Project Site
An alternative that would develop residential uses on the project site was considered but dismissed from detailed evaluation because such an alternative would not achieve three of the four objectives of the proposed project. A residential development on the project site would potentially satisfy one objective, as it could promote sustainable development and operations. However, it would not satisfy the project’s other three objectives which are to (1) provide industrial warehousing consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfil the unmet demands of businesses located in the City; (2) provide a variety of new employment opportunities for the residents of Fresno and surrounding communities; and (3) provide new industrial development that is attractive and minimizes conflicts with the surrounding existing uses. As this alternative would not satisfy most of the objectives of the project, it was deemed infeasible and was not carried forth for detailed evaluation.

5.3.2 Develop the Proposed Project at an Alternative Location As noted above, the project’s four objectives are to: provide industrial warehousing consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfil the unmet demands of businesses located in the City; provide a variety of new employment opportunities for the residents of Fresno and surrounding communities; provide new industrial development that is attractive and minimizes conflicts with the surrounding existing uses; and promote sustainable development and operations. Based on these objectives, other parcels in the Fresno area could be suitable for the development of industrial warehouse uses comparable to the proposed project. However, similar to the proposed project, the development on other sites would still have the potential to result in significant impacts on air quality, biological, cultural, and hazards and would require the same or comparable mitigation measures. Further, there would be similarly significant aesthetics, and noise impacts. As this alternative would not reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts, and because the applicant does not own the site or can reasonably acquire it, this alternative was not carried forth for detailed evaluation.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -4

5.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the No Project Alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the No Project Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project Alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.

5.4.1 No Project Alternative Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be developed and that the project site would generally remain in its current condition. The project site would continue to be consist of a vacant urban lot. No modifications to existing site access or infrastructure would occur.

5.4.2 Analysis of the No Project Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the No Project Alternative are described below.

5.4.2.1 Aesthetics
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in new development that would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resource. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The No Project Alternative would also not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-4 would not be required.

With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact on aesthetics.

5.4.2.2 Air Quality
Under the No Project Alternative, no construction activities would occur and the site would remain vacant. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction and operational less than significant criteria pollutant impacts would be avoided under this alternative; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would not be required. In addition, this alternative would not result in exposure of surrounding residents to toxic air contaminants during project construction or operation; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 would not be required. With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact on air quality.

5.4.2.3 Biological Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, no construction or grading activities would occur on the project site. As a result, the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts to nesting birds would be avoided under this alternative and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would not be required. In addition, under the No Project Alternative, no construction activities would occur that would 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. With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact on biological resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) 5-5

5.4.2.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
No construction or grading activities would occur on the project site under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential impacts that would result from construction at the project site, including potentially significant impacts related to disturbance of previously unknown archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources, would be avoided under this alternative and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would not be required. With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact on cultural and tribal resources.

5.4.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project Alternative, no construction or operational activities would occur on the project site; therefore, the No Project Alternative would not have the potential to expose the public or environment to hazardous building materials or emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with an airport land use plan, impair or interfere with emergency response or evaluation, and would not expose people or structures to wildfires. In addition, under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not include any soil disturbance activities; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would not be required. With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

5.4.2.6 Noise
Under the No Project Alternative, no construction activities would occur and the site would remain vacant. There would be no noise associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project’s potentially significant construction and operational noise impacts would be avoided under this alternative and implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI2 would not be required. In addition, the proposed project’s construction and operational less than significant vibration impacts would be avoided under this alternative. With implementation of the No Project Alternative, there would be no impact related to noise.

5.4.3 Comparison to Project Objectives
As discussed above, the No Project Alternative would avoid all of the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would also not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not provide industrial warehousing consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfil the unmet demands of businesses located in the City; provide a variety of new employment opportunities for the residents of Fresno and surrounding communities; develop new industrial businesses in proximity to major transportation infrastructure and similar type of businesses to minimize land use conflicts with surrounding existing uses; or promote sustainable development and operations.
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -6

5.5 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

5.5.1 Reduced Project Alternative Description
The Reduced Project Alternative is being considered by the Project Applicant and would involve reducing the size of the proposed project by reducing Building 1 by 217,856 square feet to 250,956 square feet, as shown in Figure 5-1. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the total project square footage from 901,438 square feet to 683,582 square feet. All of the other improvements would be the same as the proposed project, including site access and infrastructure improvements.

5.5.2 Analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the Reduced Project Alternative are described below.

5.5.2.1 Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would change the visual characteristics of the project site by developing the site with four heavy industrial buildings, consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation on the project site, and would result in lessthan-significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and would not conflict with any applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, the project site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway and there would be no impact with the Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative would also have the potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-4 would be required. All other aesthetic impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant.

5.5.2.2 Air Quality
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would involve construction and operational activities on the project site. However, due to the smaller building size under this alternative, this alternative would result in reduced construction and operational emissions, including those due to vehicle and truck trips, compared to those under the proposed project.

Therefore, this alternative would further reduce the project’s less than significant operational air quality impact. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would still result in exposure of surrounding residents to toxic air contaminants during project construction and operation. As the building space to be constructed under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, this alternative would result in reduced toxic air contaminant emissions. However, the reduction in toxic air contaminant emissions would not be enough to avoid a significant impact and, similar to the proposed project, construction and operational activity associated with this alternative would still result in a health risk impact to off-site receptors. Thus, this alternative would still require the implementation of the same mitigation measures, Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 to reduce the impact to less than significant. All other air quality impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant. 27 24
28 24
375
82 11
55 9
451
FEET
0 120 240
SOURCE: HPA Architecture, July 2022I:\SNN2102\G\Reduced Project AlternaƟve.ai (1/27/2023) FIGURE 5-1
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Reduced Project AlternaƟve
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -8 This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) 5-9

5.5.2.3 Biological Resources
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would require construction and grading activities on the project site that would have the potential to result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds. Reduced development from this alternative could potentially reduce the development footprint on-site and allow for avoidance of trees that could be occupied by nesting birds. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would still be required. In addition, construction activities associated with the Reduced Project Alternative would have a similar lessthan-significant impact related to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not affect a riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan.

5.5.2.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would also have the potential to disturb previously unknown archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources and result in significant impacts. As such, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 identified for the proposed project would also be required for this alternative to reduce the impacts to less than significant. The same less than significant impacts associated with historic resources would also occur under this alternative.

5.5.2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, construction or operational activities would occur on the project site; therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would have similar less than significant impacts related to the potential to expose the public or environment to hazardous building materials or emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would have a similar less-than-significant impact related to the potential to conflict with an airport land use plan, impair or interfere with emergency response or evaluation, and would not expose people or structures to wildfires. In addition, under the Reduced Project Alternative, soil disturbance activities would occur; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be required. Thus, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be comparable to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

5.5.2.6 Noise
Construction activities under this alternative would involve the use of generally the same types of construction equipment and vehicles as the proposed project, and construction activities would occur at the same distances from the nearest receptors as under the proposed project. As a result, the daily construction noise levels generated under this alternative would be comparable to that generated by the construction of the proposed project, and this alternative would also result in a potentially significant construction noise impact at the nearby sensitive receptors. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required. However, because the total project size would be smaller, the duration of construction would be reduced by a small number of months, and the duration of exposure to noise impacts would be slightly shorter. Due to the reduced building size under this alternative, this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project and reduced traffic related noise impacts. As with the proposed project, the operational noise 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -10 impact from vehicle trips under this alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. However, loading dock activities would still occur with this alternative; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required. In addition, as with the proposed project, construction and operational vibration impacts would be less than significant under this alternative.

5.5.3 Comparison to Project Objectives
As discussed above, the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the overall size of the project by reducing the square footage of project components. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide industrial warehousing consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfil the unmet demands of businesses located in the City; provide a variety of new employment opportunities for the residents of Fresno and surrounding communities; provide new industrial development that is attractive and minimizes conflicts with the surrounding existing uses; or promote sustainable development and operations. However, due to the reduced nature of the project under this alternative, demands for industrial businesses in the City might not be completely fulfilled. Additionally, this alternative would result in reduced employment opportunities compared to the proposed project.

5.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Based on the alternatives analysis, of the alternatives analyzed, the No Project Alternative would have the fewest impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative. Under CEQA, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Table 5.A provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts for each alternative to the proposed project.

The Reduced Project Alternative would have less than significant impacts in most resource topics that would be comparable to the proposed project. The alternative would have potentially reduced construction-phase air quality and noise impacts, and reduced operational-phase air quality and noise impacts due its smaller size, and lesser aesthetic impacts due to reduced development in the site. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative.

Table 5.A: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project to the Project Alternatives
Environmental Topic
Proposed Project
Level of Impact After
Mitigation
Alternative 1:

No Project Alternative
Alternative 2:

Reduced Project
Alternative
Aesthetics Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Similar
Air Quality Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Fewer
Biological Resources Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Similar
Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Similar

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) 5-11 Table 5.A: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project to the Project Alternatives
Environmental Topic
Proposed Project
Level of Impact After
Mitigation
Alternative 1:

No Project Alternative
Alternative 2:

Reduced Project
Alternative
Energy Less than Significant Fewer Fewer
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Fewer Fewer Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Fewer Fewer Noise Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Fewer Fewer
Transportation Less than Significant Fewer Fewer
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Fewer Fewer Attainment of Project Objectives Meets all of the Project Objectives
Meets none of the Project
Objectives
Meets the Project
Objectives but not to the
same degree as the
proposed project
Source: LSA (January 2023).

Legend:

Greater = Greater impacts than the proposed project
Fewer = Fewer impacts than the proposed project
Similar = Similar impacts as the proposed project
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
5 P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/21/23) -12 This page intentionally left blank
February 2023

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TECHNICAL APPENDICES – VOLUME I –
APPENDICES A – I
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
LSA
This page intentionally left blank
i

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Technical Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/22/23)

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I:

A: NOP COMMENTS
B: INITIAL STUDY
C: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
D: HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
E: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
F: PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
G: ENERGY CALCULATIONS
H: GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST I: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
LSA
This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23)

APPENDIX A

NOP COMMENTS
LSA
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23) This page intentionally left blank
LSA
9/7/22 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\NOP\2740 West Nielsen NOP.docx) 1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT Date: September 9, 2022
To: State Clearinghouse, Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project in Fresno, CA Lead Agency: City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8277
[email protected]
Contact: Steven Martinez
Planner
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8047
[email protected]
Comment Period: September 9, 2022 to October 10, 2022
Si necesita información en Español, comuníquese con Juan Lara al teléfono (559) 621- 8075 o por correo electrónico a [email protected].

Notice is Hereby Given: The City of Fresno (City) is the Lead Agency on the below-described 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (proposed project) and has prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The NOP is intended to solicit the views of the public, interested parties, and/or agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is relevant to you or your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Specifically, the City is requesting that commenters identify environmental topics (and/or special studies) that they believe need to be explored in the forthcoming EIR, and to identify other relevant environmental issues related to the scope and content of the forthcoming EIR.

Project Title: 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (Development Permit Application No. P21-02699 and Tentative Parcel Map No. P21-05930) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022050265)
Project Location: The proposed project is located on approximately 48.03 acres at 2740 West Nielsen Avenue: Northeast of intersection of North Marks Avenue and West Nielsen Avenue in 9/7/22 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\NOP\2740 West Nielsen NOP.docx) 2 Fresno, California (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 458-020-71 and 458-020-72). The project site is bounded to the north by vacant, undeveloped land, to the east by North Hughes Avenue, to the south by West Nielsen Avenue, and to the west by North Marks Avenue. The attached Figure 1 shows the regional and local context of the project location.

Project Description: The proposed project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet. The buildings’ exterior would be up to 44 feet high with an interior height of up to 36 feet and designed with a total of 201 loading dock doors on the north and south sides of the buildings. The four buildings would be comprised of the following:

Building 1 would be 468,812 square feet and would provide 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would be 248,786 square feet and would provide 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would be 93,074 square feet and would provide 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would be 90,766 square feet and would provide 15 loading dock doors. Figure 2 shows the project site plan.

A total of 594 on-site parking spaces would be provided for vehicles and trucks. Of the 594 parking spaces, 385 spaces would be dedicated for standard vehicles, 11 spaces would be dedicated for accessible standard vehicles, and 10 spaces would be dedicated for accessible vans. The remaining 188 spaces would be dedicated for trailers and would be located along the eastern and western edges of the project site and would be located behind two 8-foot-tall gates, which would be installed to separate the general parking area from the truck storage and dock loading area.

Areas of Potential Environmental Effects: The EIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts related to the proposed project, after having first established the environmental setting, or baseline, for the environmental analysis. The significance of potential impacts, cumulative impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures associated with the proposed project will be thoroughly discussed in the EIR. The EIR will be comprehensive and will evaluate each of the environmental issue topics required by CEQA. The individual environmental topics include:
• Aesthetics • Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Transportation
• Energy • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems In addition, in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will assess a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The range of alternatives to be addressed will include alternatives that are specifically required by CEQA (e.g., the No Project Alternative), as well as other alternatives (intended to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts) as identified through the coordinated consultation and planning process.

Document Availability and Public Review Timeline: Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to the NOP must be sent no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. The review period for the NOP will be from September 9, 2022, to October 10, 2022.

All documents related to this project are available for public review during normal business 9/7/22 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\NOP\2740 West Nielsen NOP.docx) 3 hours (Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M.) by appointment only, at the Planning and Development Department at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, CA 93721. Electronic copies may also be requested for review. Please contact Steven Martinez via e-mail or by phone to request electronic copies or to schedule an appointment to view documents.

Documents related to this project can also be accessed on the City’s website at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/planning-development/plans-projects-under-review/.

Public Scoping Meeting: The CEQA process encourages comments and questions from the public throughout the planning process. Pursuant to Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Public Scoping Meeting will be held to solicit public comments on the scope and content of the EIR. A public scoping meeting for this project will be conducted virtually at 6:00 PM on Thursday, September 22, 2022. The webinar information is provided below:

Via Zoom online meeting at: https://bit.ly/2740WestNielsen Or by Phone at: +1 669 444 9171 US
Webinar ID: 868 6600 9238
Passcode: 154493
Submitting Comments: Comments and suggestions as to the appropriate scope of analysis of the EIR are encouraged from all interested parties. If you wish to provide comments or ask questions about the EIR, you may do so by written letter sent via post mail to the address below or via written email to [email protected] (CC [email protected]). Comments must include the commenter’s full name, address, phone number, and/or email so you may be contacted for clarification, if necessary. Please submit comments to Steven Martinez no later than 5:00 PM on October 10, 2022.

Steven Martinez
Planner
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8047
[email protected]
SOURCE: Esri Topographic Map (2021)
I:\SNN2102\GIS\MXD\Project_Location.mxd (6/7/2021)
FIGURE 1
2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
Regional Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
Proposed Parcels
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Ã43
Ã168
Ã180
Ã41
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
W Floradora Ave
W Belmonl Ave
W Fmnkl1n Ave
WN,e lsenAve
LSA 1ci1
D
!t
4:
.,
ill
.2
m
(/)
W Belmont Ave
J Johnson 01 wll-~' :E
"' "' 0
W Hedges Ave
WOhve Ave
"Wheel Rd
l
i
5'
r
(/)
W Kea rrey Blvd
~
< "
;;;
W Dan Ronquillo o, </l ~
WOhve Ave
Freono
Chatre•
Zoo
(/)
1;?
<t
C
~ "
{'!
(/)
w Haw,\
~
....
e
:;;
0 1
(/)
FEET
0 120 240
SOURCE: HPA Architecture, Inc., 2021FreP:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Graphics\Figure 3.ai (10/5/2021) FIGURE 2
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Site Plan
"' >
..
.,
..
"'
..
"'
n
LSA
48 DOC DOORS
"• •. .··· · ... ·
. . . .
. '.;
A y E.
"' >
..
"' :c
" :,
L
From: Brenda Veenendaal
To: Steven Martinez
Cc: Ralph Kachadourian
Subject: RE: Scannell Office / Warehouse Project NOP
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:17:14 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Steven and Ralph,
I have briefly reviewed the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project NOP, against concerns with the project’s Airport Land Use Plan’s consistency. This is just a head’s up on what could be at issue, but hopefully is not. Part of the project appears to sit within Airport Land Use Zone 4- Outer approach, and the rest sits in Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone. Zone 4 allows one nonresidential dwelling until per 2 acres, and a maximum of 150 persons per acre. With a project area of

48.03 acres I don’t suppose that should be an issue, but it should not include any hazardous user such as aboveground bulk fuel storage or gas stations within this zone. Zone 4 also requires a 20% open space requirement to accommodate emergency aircraft landings. Zone 6 prohibits very high intensity uses. Please keep that in mind as well.

New structures are prohibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces.

Developers proposing structures that could penetrate 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces must file Form 7460 with the FAA to determine if 7460 review is required, consult FAA’s Notice Criteria Tool:
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp? action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm
Again, just a head’s up on what the ALUC would be looking at should the project need a finding of consistency.

Brenda Veenendaal
Administrative Services Manager
Public Information and Ridesharing Programs
Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93721
559.233.4148, ext. 219
[email protected]
From: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 2:10 PM
~ Fresno Council {{! ofOovernments
To: Steven Martinez <[email protected]>
Cc: Ralph Kachadourian <[email protected]>
Subject: Scannell Office / Warehouse Project NOP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings All,
Please see attached the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (with Scoping Meeting information) for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Scannell Office/Warehouse Project.

Thank you.

Steven Martinez - Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
559 - 621 - 8047
[email protected]

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiserio

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Oh/one-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luisefio

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

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

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
September 9, 2022
Steven Martinez
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: 2022050265, Development Permit Application No. P21 -02699 & Tentative Parcel Map No.

P21-05930 Project, Fresno County
Dear Mr. Martinez:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5 (b) J: If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(l) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a)(l)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2) . Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) . AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements . If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.