CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Application No.
P23-00835, Planned Development Permit Application No. P23 -02080, and related Environmental Assessment
Exhibit J-2
Mitigated Negative Declaration
(State Clearinghouse No. 2012111015) dated
August 2, 2017
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-6-
previously examined in the MEIR.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR, but that impact is less than significant;
c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is an additional potentially significant effect related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3. All answers must take account of the whole act ion involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5. A "Finding of Conformity" is a determination based on an initial study that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified i n the MEIR and that it is fully within the scope of the MEIR because it would have no additional significant effects that were not examined in the MEIR.
6. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporat ion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-7-
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant lev el (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
7. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursu ant to the tiering, program EIR or M EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above c hecklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the MEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
8. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
9. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
10. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
11. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-8-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, t rees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
a – c. No Impact. No public or scenic vista will be obstructed by the proposed project and no scenic resources are in the project vicinity (Caltrans 2017). The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings.
Currently the project site consists of mostly open fields and four single family dwellings.
The site is surrounded by urbanized uses including residential neighborhoods, a community center and a middle school. Construction of the project would create visual continuity by extending urbanization similar to the existing onto the project site. d. No Impact . Because the project proposes commercial and public facility development in the vicinity of existing residential development, both potential sources of light or glare that could adversely affect the nighttime views in the area, the measures within MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, Mitigation Measure Monitoring Check list t hat address lighting systems for public facilities and non- residential facilities will be employed to mitigate that impact.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-9-
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the project will not result in any aesthetics impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the aesthetics -related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Master Environmental Impact Report No. (MEIR) SCH No.2012111015 Fresno General Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-10-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND
FORESTRY RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the
CA Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the CA Dept.
of Conservation as an optional
model to us e in assessing
impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are
significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the C A
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the CA Air Resources
Board. -- Would the project:
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-11-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the CA
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in PRC section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by PRC section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-12-
Background
The California Department of Conservation established the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is called Pri me Farmland with additional categories, including Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Based on the FMMP, there are approximately 9,550 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 2,911 acres of Unique Farmland, and approximately 2,355 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance for a total of approximately 14,816 acres within the Planning Area. Based on existing farmland data received from the Fresno County Assessor’s Office Land Use Codes that was provided by City staff, th ere is a total of approximately 11,714 acres that have agricultural operations (City of Fresno 2014a, 5.2- 11). With the implementation of the General Plan and Development Code Update, the approximately 15,903 acres of FMMP-designated farmland and approximately 11,714 acres of existing farmland are anticipated to be converted to uses other than agriculture. This conversion is a significant impact on agricultural resources, and was already considered in the General Plan MEIR and overridden with findings of overriding consideration. a. Less than Significant. The subject property is designated approximately one half “Prime Farmland,” defined as land that has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields , and one half “Farmland of Local Importance,” which refers to all farmable lands within Fresno County that does not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmland.
The Fresno General Plan MEIR analyzed “project specific” impacts associated wit h future development within the Planning Area (Sphere of Influence) as well as the cumulative impacts factored from future development in areas outside of the Planning Area. The MEIR identifies locations within the Planning Area that have been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance through the FMMP. The analysis of impacts contained within the MEIR acknowledges that Fresno General Plan implementation anticipates all of the FMMP -designated farmland within the Planning Area being converted t o uses other than agriculture. Furthermore, the MEIR acknowledges that the anticipated conversion is a significant impact on agricultural resources. The loss of approximately 50 acres of prime farmland that would occur as a resul t of the proposed project was already covered in the General Plan MEIR, which was adopted with findings of overriding consideration for the loss of approximately 9,550 acres of prime farmland. Furthermore, viability of farming on the subject site is greatly impacted by the fact that the property is surrounded on 3 sides by urbanized uses: housing to the west, churches and a school to the north, and a school Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-13-
and residential uses to the east. Therefore, the impact of the project is less than significant.
b – e. No Impact. The subject sites are not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project on the subject site will not affect existing agriculturally zoned or Williamson Act contract parcels. The proposed project will not conflict with any forest land or timberland production or result in any loss of forest land. Nor will it involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of f armland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use.
In conclusion, the proposed project is fully within the scope of the Fresno General Plan and would not result in any agriculture and forestry resource environmental i mpacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-14-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - Where
available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air
quality management or air
pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. --
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quali ty standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-15-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant con-
centrations.
X
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number o f
people?
X
Background
Ambient air quality has basically remained unchanged since approval of the MEIR. The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Distr ict (SJVAPCD). Both the State of California and the federal government have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O
3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as non- attainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non-attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards.
The SJVAB is comprised of approximately 25,000 square miles and covers all of seven counties including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare, and the western portion of an eighth, Kern. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevati on), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The valley is topographically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. An aerial view of the SJVAB would simulate a “bowl” opening only to the north. These topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin.
Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and maintained by the local air districts and state air quality regulating agencies. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to identify regions as “attainment” or “nonattainment” depending on whether the regions meet the requirements stated in the applicable National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. In addition, different classifications of Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-16-
attainment, such as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme, are used to classify each air basin in the state on a pollutant -by-pollutant basis. The classifications are used as a foundation to create air quality management strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS. The SJVAB’s attainment status for each of the criteria pollutants for Fresno County is listed in Table 1.
SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status for Fresno County
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Standard Revoked
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Regulation
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Regulation
Source: California Air Resources Board and USEPA, 2016.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would affect air quality both during construction and operation.
Operational impacts would be indirect would include emissions from to vehicle trips generated by future residents and other users of the project site.
This section identifies the air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce impacts to a less -than-significant level. This section also identifies impacts that are considered to be less-than-significant. a. No Impact.
The MEIR identified two tests to determine if the project conflicts or obstructs the applicable air quality plans. First, if development proposed by the General Plan exceeds the growth projections used in the applicable attainment plan, it would produce a potentially significant impact. Second, if the project includes goals, policies, and development standards that are in conflict with the development related control Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-17-
measures in the attainment plans, the project would be potentially significant. Under these tests, it was determined that implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with applicable Air Quality Plans.
The proposed project would provide the plan amendment, prezoning amendment, parcel map and the annexation needed to develop an educational facility, a park, a residential neighborhood, and commercial uses. The total number of residential units under the proposed project would be reduced wit h project implementation as would trip generation rate for the site. Additionally, any future development implemented as part of the proposed project would be subject to the General Plan goals and policies that would reduce air impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more significant population growth impacts than were analyzed and described in the MEIR.
In addition, as discussed in the MEIR, the SJVAPCD has adopted rules and regulations specifically designed to reduce the impac ts of growth as it applies to consistency with the applicable air quality plans. Rule 9510‐ Indirect Source Review was adopted to provide emission reductions needed by the SJVAPCD to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM10 standard and contributed reductions that assist in attaining federal ozone standards. Rule 9510 also contributes toward attainment of state standards for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions requires controls for sources of particulate matter necessary for attaining the federal PM10 standards and achieving progress toward attaining the state PM10 standards. Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary Source Review requires new and modified stationary/industrial sources provide emission controls and offsets that ensure that stationary sources decline over time and do not impact the applicabl e air quality plans.
The proposed project would be required to comply with these rules and regulations.
Therefore, as with the General Plan MEIR, the proposed project would not interfere or obstruct with the application of the attainment plans.
b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Short-Term Construction Emissions.
As identified in the MEIR for the General Plan, construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause temporary adverse effects on local air quality.
Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non -water-based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases immediately after its Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-18-
application. Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when, and if, underlying materials are exposed to the atmosphere. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity.
The proposed project would allow for a plan amendment, a pre zoning amendment, a parcel map a nd annexation of the site to occur, and no specific development projects are proposed at this time. Any future development associated with the proposed project site would result in similar construction- related, short-term air quality impacts as those impacts identified in the General Plan the MEIR. The MEIR states that future individual projects that exceed project level significance thresholds after accounting f or Rule 9510 reductions would be required to implement additional mitigation measures to reduce significant emissions. As identified in the MEIR for the General Plan, compliance with Rule 9510 would contribute to a reduction of construction related emissions to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. Project specific mitigation measures have been implemented to mitigate construction- related air quality impacts.
With
implementation of project specific mitigations , the proposed project would not r esult in any new or more significant construction-related air quality impacts than were described in the MEIR and this impact would be less-than-significant.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
The proposed project would allow for a plan amendment, p rezone, a parcel map, and annexation to the City of Fresno. The proposed project would allow for future development of the property with an educational facility, a park, a residential neighborhood, and commercial uses.
The new land uses would result in mobile air q uality emissions from vehicle trips to the project site and area source emissions such as those generated from the use of landscaping equipment and water heating. Future development associated with the proposed project would contribute to the significant regional and local air quality impacts identified in the General Plan MEIR, including the long -term project-related emissions associated with the ozone precursor reactive organic gases (ROG) and particulate matter. However, the proposed project land use and zoning designations are less intense than those currently represented on the General Plan land use map (and analyzed in the MEIR).
The MEIR identified comprehensive policies, ordinances, and regulations that would mitigate project impacts that would reduc e criteria pollutant emissions, however, Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-19-
implementation of the General Plan would exceed the SJVAPCD project level thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5.
As shown in Table 2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Exhibit E) for the proposed project, the mix of land uses proposed by the project would result in a reduction of average daily trip generation of 5,020 when compared to the land uses proposed in the General Plan MEIR due to the less intense use of the project site. To determine the change in emissions associated with the proposed project, an analysis using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was performed. Emissions for the site identified in the General Plan MEIR and emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 2. Model output sheets are included in Exhibit E.
Proposed Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year)
Category ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
General Plan (MEIR) Land Use Designations
Area 11.0 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.2 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.2
Mobile 11.2 115.4 101.9 0.4 23.9 6.8
Total 22.4 117.6 111.7 0.4 24.1 7.0
Proposed Project Land Use Designations
Area 8.1 0.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.2 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1
Mobile 9.7 100.1 90.4 0.4 21.8 6.1
Total 18.0 101.6 96.2 0.4 21.9 6.3
Change in
Emissions
Associated with
the Proposed
Project
-4.4 -16.0 -15.5 0.0 -2.2 -0.7
Source: LSA, July 2017.
As shown in Table 2 above, emissions associated with the proposed project would be substantially reduced over those identified for the site in the General Plan MEIR.
Transportation emissions are the primary source of emissions associated with the land use development projects, and as shown in Table 1, emissions associated with the proposed project would be reduced over those estimated for the General Plan MEIR.
Area source emissions from landscaping and consumer products would be similar to those emissions identified in for the General Plan in the MEIR. Therefore, as shown in Table 2, the proposed project would not result in any new or more si gnificant regional or Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-20-
local air quality impacts than described in the MEIR. Future development projects associated with the project would also be subject to the existing policies, ordinances, and regulations identified in the General Plan MEIR. Therefore, the proposed project’s regional air quality impacts would be less than the impact identified in the MEIR and would not result in any new or worsening air quality impacts. c. Less than Significant
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The air quality attainment plans describe and evaluate the future projected emissions sources in the Basin and set forth a strategy to meet both state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and federal ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the attainment plans are relevant plans for a CEQA cumulative impacts analysis. The MEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Upd ate would be consistent with air quality attainment plans, but would exceed SJVAPCD air emissions thresholds resulting in a potentially significant impact. As identified above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable air quality attainment plans and would contribute to the significant regional and local air quality impacts identified in the MEIR. However, as shown in Table 2, the proposed project would result in fewer emissions than those identified in the MEIR, and therefore the project would not result in any new or more significant cumulative air quality impacts than were described in the General Plan MEIR. This impact would be less than significant. d and e. No Impact.
Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants.
Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors.
The MEIR identified a variety of pollutant or toxic air emissions, such as diesel exhaust and stationary source TAC emissions. However, the determination of localized pollutant concentrations requires project specific information that was not available at the General Plan level and is not available at the zoning level for the proposed project.
Therefore, the determination of impacts associated with the General Plan and the proposed project would be based on implementation of mitigation measures to ensure that future development projects would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Any future development proposal for the proposed project site with the potential to expose sensitive receptors (including residential areas) or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. This would apply to locating sensitive receptors near existing sources Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-21-
of toxic air contaminants, as well as locating sources of toxic air contaminants near existing sensitive receptors. With implementation of these Mitigation Measures as identified in the MEIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant health risk impacts than were described in the General Plan MEIR and this impact would be less than significant.
During construction, the various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on- site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is, therefore, considered less than significant. No sources of objectionable odors have been identified in the project vicinity. As with all projects within the City, proposals of a new odor source would require an applicant to demonst rate that the proposed facility includes odor controls within its design and through implementation of odor management practices to reduce odors to a less than significant level. The General Plan MEIR identified Mitigation Measure MM AQ-5 to reduce this impact. When the measure is implemented by the proposed project, the project would not result in odor impacts that are greater than those identified in the MEIR and this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall im plement and incorporate the air quality resources- related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Master Environmental Impact Report No. (MEIR) SCH No.2012111015 Fresno General Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
2. The propos ed project shall implement and incorporate the air quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-22-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -
- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications , on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
CA Dept. of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the C A Dept. of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-23-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
Background
Central California is a unique biological enclave with a rich diversity of flora and fauna.
This region’s climate, soils, hydrology and geographic isolation fostered resident species found nowhere else on earth. Through agricultural, rural resi dential and urban development, these species and their habitats are being diminished and marginalized.
Approximately 63 percent of the City of Fresno’s 106,027- acre Planning Area consists of previous disturbed urban/developed areas containing industrial, c ommercial, and residential development and associated roads and infrastructure. About 32 percent of the Planning Area contains previous disturbed agricultural lands, orchards, pasture, and row and field crops located predominately along the outer boundaries of the Planning Area. Undeveloped and undisturbed areas with native vegetation occur within the remaining 5 percent of the Planning Area (City of Fresno 2014a, 5.4- 3). The San Joaquin River corridor along the northern border of the Planning Area provides a Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-24-
concentrated riparian plant and animal sanctuary. The area is a sensitive environment hosting a diversity of wildlife, fish, and plan species and contains the last remnants of a true riparian environment (City of Fresno 2011, 32). The San Joaquin River corridor is the only wildlife movement corridor in Fresno; open space and recreational use areas lack the substantive linkages necessary to be considered part of a wildlife movement corridor (City of Fresno 2014a, 5.4- 40). In addition to the San Joaquin Ri ver there are several canals that traverse the SOI that provide opportunities for both vegetation and wildlife, however such opportunities are limited (City of Fresno 2011, 32). a – f. No Impact . The subject site currently contains land that has been farme d in orchards and row crops and four rural residences , with the majority of the site being vacant. The project is on the edge of an urbanized area, with residential, park and school land to the north and east. Along the south side of the property there is some rural residential development and some agricultural development and along the west a housing subdivision and an open field. There are no native plants, riparian vegetation, significant wildlife populations or wetlands known to exist on the project sit e. There are a few trees, hedges and other vegetation surrounding the existing residences that will be removed for future development; however the landscaping does not appear to be native vegetation. Future development will comply with Chapter 13, Article 3 of the City’s Development code which provides for replacement of trees when they are required to be removed for development. Because these trees are potentially suitable environments for several special -status species (including the swainson hawk and the western mastiff batt) that have been identified within five miles of the project area, the project will be subject to MEIR biological resources mitigation measures that address construction within a potentially suitable habitat.
There are no Habitat Cons ervation Plans (HCPs), Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) or other adopted local, regional or state HCP involving the subject area.
Therefore, development will not result in any impacts to an adopted HCP or NCCP.
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the project will not result in any biological resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the biological resources - related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Master Environmental Impact Report No. (MEIR) SCH No.2012111015 Fresno General Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-25-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substan tial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
e) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Nat ive
American tribe, and that is:
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-26-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in PRC section 5020.1(k),
or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi -
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC s ection 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Background
Cultural resources include prehistoric -era ar chaeological sites, historic -era archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sites of religious and cultural significance, and historical buildings, structures, objects, and sites. The importance or significance of a cultural resource is in part described by the context in which it originated or developed. National Park Service Bulletin 16a describes a historic context as “information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in prehistory or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time” (NPS 1997). A context links an existing property to important historic trends and this allows a framework for determining the significance of a property.
In California, historians have divided the past into broad categories based on climate models, archaeological dating and written histories. Paleontologists divide time into much larger segments, with defined and named periods of time shortening in timespan as the modern era is reached.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-27-
Current geological maps indicate that the Planning Area consists of Quaternary alluvium with two primary surficial deposits: 1) Pleistocene non- marine (Riverbank Formation) and 2) Quaternary non-marine fan deposits, both of which have high potential sensitivity (City of Fres no 2014a, 5.5- 14). Farming activities and previous structural development have disturbed the soils through much of the Planning Area; however future development that requires excavation or construction in previously undisturbed soils could impact paleontological resources.
a – d. No Impact. The project site does not contain any resources that are currently listed in the National State or Local Register of Historic Places, and the subject site is not within a designated historic district. The site does include four extant rural residential sites that are all over 50 years of age. The City of Fresno Historic Preservation Program Manager reviewed the site and has determined that the extant properties are not eligible for the National, State, or Local Register o f Historic Places . There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist within the project area. Past record searches for the region have not revealed the likelihood of cultural resources on the subject property or in its immediate vic inity. It is not expected that the proposed project may impact cultural resources. It should be noted however, that lack of surface evidence of historical resources does not preclude the subsurface existence of archaeological resources. Furthermore, previously unknown paleontological resources or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during project construction.
Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the project, the measures within MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist to address archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological and/or animal fossil material be encountered dur ing project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources.
Using a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission, notification letters were sent informing tribes of the project pursuant to A.B. 52, on June 30, 2017. No traditional cultural resources were identifi ed through the A.B. 52 process. One tribe, Table Mountain Rancheria responded on July 18, 2017 and declined further participation at this time, but requested notification in the unlikely event that cultural resources were identified. MEIR mitigation measures would apply to address this request.
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the project will not result in any cultural resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-28-
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the cultural resources- related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Master Environmental Impact Report No. (MEIR) SCH No.2012111015 Fresno General Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-29-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geol ogist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-30-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
x
Background
Fresno has no known active earthquake faults, and is not in any Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones (California Geologic Survey 2007). The immediate Fresno area has extremely low seismic activity levels, although shaki ng may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Long Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems. The most serious threat to Fresno from a major earthquake in the Easter n Sierra would be flooding that could be caused by damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River.
Fresno is classified by the State as being in a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on the soils underlying the specific location being categorized and that l ocation’s proximity to the nearest known fault lines (California Geologic Survey Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-31-
2003). All new structures are required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code.
a – e. No Impact . No adverse environmental effects r elated to topography, soils or geology are expected as a result of the proposed project . The project must comply with all applicable building and development codes. State and local regulations require preparation of a site specific soils study by a qualifi ed, licensed engineering professional. Said soils study must be approved by the City Engineer and others to assure compliance with mandatory soils, geologic and related grading requirements.
The City of Fresno mandatory requirements and related ministerial permits have proven to be effective in addressing potential impacts to geology and soils. The property is not on a known earthquake fault, it will not result in substantial erosion, it is not located on unstable or expansive soil, and will not use septic tanks. Therefore request will have a less than significant impact on geology and soils.
In conclusion, the proposed project w ill not result in any geology or soil environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-32-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Background
Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human- induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).
Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally - Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-33-
occurring GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short -lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the g as remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas; the definition of GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period.
Greenhouse gas emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).
City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update The City’s General Plan Update includes guiding and implementing policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with development in the City. The policies relate to design and development principals, support for alternate modes of transportation, transportati on improvements, habitat conservation, and water conservation (City of Fresno 2014a, 5.7-26 to 5.7 -41). The measures are detailed on pages 5.7-23 through 5.7-41 of the MEIR.
City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction P lan was created as part of the General Plan and includes strategies to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 The following policies from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan would be applicable to the proposed project.
New Discre tionary Development Approval Process to Determine Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
1. Review General Plan Policies listed in the GHG Plan to determine applicability to the project.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-34-
2. Incorporate design features or mitigation measures into the project as needed to demonstrate consistency.
a. Street and pedestrian design complies with complete streets concepts. b. Review project against Development Code for mandatory design features required for the project.
c. Consider alternative energy generation (solar) if appropriate for the project and site. (The State is working towards zero net energy development that will require increasing efficiency and self generation over time). d. Review water conservation building and landscape design features for compliance with City water conservation standards.
3. Implement project design features suitable for the development type and location.
a. Projects within core/center areas and BRT corridors should meet minimum density and design requirements to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation is met.
b. Maintain and enhance connections to regional bikeways and trail system.
4. Complete the latest version of the Fresno Green Residential or Non‐ Residential Checklist
a. Meet the Fresno Green checklist point requirements.
b. Alternatively, meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Programs, or qualify for Build It Green’s GreenPoint rating system for residential building.
New Discretionary Development requiring a General Plan Amendment
1. Comply with all of the measures listed above for ministerial and discretionary projects.
2. Ensure that change in land use designation would not result in a significant increase in GHG emissions compared to the existing designation (would require a GHG technical study to quantify GHG emissions and benefits of project design features).
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-35-
3. Projects currently designated for residential or commercial development that increase development densities and intensities and comply with all other relevant General Plan policies and City design standards are considered to have less than significant GHG impacts.
4. Emissions from stationary sources for new industrial projects are not considered in the significance determination; however, emissions from motor vehicles trips generated by the project and energy efficiency of the building are considered.
5. Projects that propose decreases in development densities or intensities requiring a General Plan will require analysis to determine the impacts on the General Plan land use strategy and must identify mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond those required by regulation if needed. a and b. Less than Significant.
Individual projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and probable future projects. While individual projects are unlikely to measurably affect global climate change, each of these projects incrementally contributes toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis, in concert with all other past, present, and probable future projects.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities associated with future development that would occur under the zone change. Construction emissions would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long -term regional emissions associated with the project through vehicle trips, energy consumption, and water consumption.
The MEIR analyzed the potential greenhouse gas emissions that would result from buildout of the General Plan, including construction emissions. In addition, a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan was created as part of the General Plan, which includes strategies to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The plan demonstrates that even though the City would have increased growth, the per capita emissi on rates would be reduced through 2020. The General Plan policies would continue to provide greenhouse gas reductions beyond 2020 since they would apply to all development that would occur, however, the amount of local reductions needed beyond 2020 is uncertain pending adoption of state targets for future years. As such, the MEIR concluded that cumulative greenhouse gas impacts related to growth under the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would allow for the future development of an educational facility, a park, a residential neighborhood, and commercial uses on the proposed project site.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-36-
Similar to the analysis conducted for the site in the MEIR, the proposed land uses would result in mobile GHG emissions from increased vehicle trips to the project site and area source GHG impacts such as emissions generated from the use of landscaping equipment and water heating. However, as shown in trip generation analysis for the proposed project, the proposed land use and zoning designations are less intense than those evaluated in the General Plan MEIR and would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips
Based on the CalEEMod analysis prepared for the proposed project, the previous land use designations as evaluated in the MEIR would result in 49,465.7 metric tons CO2e per year, while the proposed project would result in emissions of 42,121.6 metric tons CO2e per year. This represents a reduction of 7,344 metric tons CO2e per year over emissions identified in the MEIR for the proposed project site Therefore, the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be less than the impacts identified in the General Plan MEIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially greater greenhouse gas impacts; therefore, this impact would be less-than significant.
The MEIR included an evaluation of the General Plan Update and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan’s compliance with AB 32 and the Scoping Plan. It was determined that the General Plan Update includes numerous policies that support state efforts to reduce greenhouse gases as detailed in the Scoping Plan. No General Plan policies were identified that conflict with or obstruct Scoping Plan strategies. The Scoping Plan future year inventories include growth projected for development throughout the State, including Fresno. The MEIR considered this impact less than significant. The proposed project would be required to be consistent with the policies listed in the General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. All proposed proj ects are required to demonstrate consistency with the City of Fresno’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
The proposed project would not conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable permit and planning requirements in place or adopted by the City of Fresno. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. T he proposed project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emission nor conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In conclusion, the project will not result in any greenhouse gas impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-37-
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-38-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one- quarter mile
of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a signifi cant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-39-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
X
Background
Under the California Code of Regulations, hazardous materials are defined as substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to hu man health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-40-
or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials have one or more of the following properties:
Toxicity - causes human health effects
Ignitability - has the ability to burn
Corrosivity - causes burns or damages/degrades materials Reactivity - causes explosions or generates toxic gases A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards through being released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20- 24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste. The contaminated areas in Fresno are largely associated with leaking underground storage tanks and are predominately clustered south of Downtown, near the Fresno Yosemite International Ai rport and Palm Bluffs Corporate Center, and along the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks (City of Fresno 2014b: 9-32). a – c. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project plan includes future development of the property with an educational facility, a park, a residential neighborhood, and commercial uses . The proposed project does not include land uses that are focused on the use or production of hazardous materials. Some commercial uses may include the use o f hazardous materials. As part of the entitlement process, future uses will be reviewed by the Fresno County Department of Public Health, and be required to submit Hazardous Mat erials Business Plans, The potential impact s are therefore less than significant.
The proposed project is across the street from Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School.
There are no hazardous materials related to the proposed project. However, vehicle emissions from construction activities and daily trips from residential uses could impact the school. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS), dated July 19, 2017 was completed by the Department of Public Works, Traffic and Engineering Division for this project. The TIS analysis compared current General Plan land use designations to proposed land use designations (see Transportation and Traffic Impacts below) . The study found that the proposed project would result in fewer trips than anticipated by the current General P lan uses, therefore the impact on the school is less than significant.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-41-
d. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is not on a hazardous material site (DTSC 2017) . However, as a precautionary measure, project specific mitigation measures require that a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be conducted p rior to grading along with a Phase II or remediation if required by the Phase 1 ESA.
The Fresno County Department of Public Health conditions of approval for the project include measures to protect ground water prior to the destruction of any agricultural wells and septic tanks . S hould underground storage tanks be discovered during the project, the conditions of approval require the applicant to secure an underground storage tank removal permit from the county (see Exhibit F). e – f. No Impact. The project is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUC 2000), nor is it in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project i s surrounded by urban uses and therefore not adjacent to wildlands and will not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (City of Fresno 2011).
In conclusion, with project specific mitigation incorporated, the project will not result in any hazards and hazardous material impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hazards and hazardous material related mitigatio n measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-42-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that ther e would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support
existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-43-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
X
e) 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?
X
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100 -year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-44-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
X
Background
Fresno is one of the largest cities in the United States still relying on groundwater for its public water supply. Surface water treatment and distribution has been implemented in the northeastern part of the City, but the city is still subject to an EPA Sole Source Aquifer designation. While the aquifer underlying Fresno typically exceeds a depth of 300 feet and is capacious enough to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water to the metropolitan area well into the twenty -first century, gr oundwater degradation, increasingly stringent water quality regulations, and an historic trend of high consumptive use of water on a per capita basis (some 250 gallons per day per capita), have resulted in a general decline in aquifer levels, increased cos t to provide potable water and localized water supply limitations.
The adverse groundwater conditions of limited supply and compromised quality have been well-documented by planning, environmental impact report and technical studies over the past 20 years including the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) No.
SCH No. 2012111015 for the General Plan, the MEIR 10130 for the Fresno General Plan, Final EIR No.10100, Final EIR No.10117, and Final EIR No. SCH 95022029 (Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan), et al. These conditions include water quality degradation due to DBCP, arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations; low water well yields; limited aquifer storage capacity and recharge capacity; and, intensive urban or semi -urban development occurring upgradient from the Fresno Metropolitan Area.
In response to the need for a comprehensive long -range water supply and distribution strategy, the General Plan recognizes the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-45-
Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City of Fresno 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies to meet the future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno- Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and, provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities.
The 2016 Urban Water Management Plan illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals the City is implementing a host of strategies, including:
Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of Fresno- Yosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Municipal Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;
Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigation District for treatment at the Northeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and construct a new Southeast Storm Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and
Recycle wastewater at the Fresno- Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re- use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC -6- d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.
The City of Fresno has adopted a key objective of balancing its groundwater operations by 2025. Groundwater is replenished mainly by natural recharge and subsurface flows; however the major component of this objective is the use of treated surface water from existing entitlements. The City is entitled to 60,000 acre feet from the Bureau of Reclamation and 85,000 acre feet from the Kings River annually. Use of treated surface water from the NESWTF has increased from 100 percent dependence on groundwater in 2004 to 28,347 acre feet per year (af/yr) in 2015. Increases in surface water use effectively reduced groundwater use from 156,487 af/yr in 2000 to 83,360 af/yr in 2015 (City of Fresno 2016, 4-2). By 2025, with the addition of recycled water from the RWRF, groundwater use will drop to 53,500 af/yr, with 25,000 af/yr from recy cled water and 123,000 af/yr from treated surface water.
In addition, the General Plan policies require the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-46-
programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.
Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and the applicable mitigation measures of approved environmental review documents will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.
a – b, f. Less than Significant . The project area is located within the Development Area 1-South. In accordance with the provisions of the Fresno General Plan and MEIR mitigation measures, project specific water supply and distribution requirements must assure than an adequate source of water is available to serve the project. There currently is a water connection fee program to support the development of water supply, treatment, conveyance and recharge facilities. In accordance with the provisions of the Fresno General Plan and the MEIR mitigation measures, project specific water supply and distribution requirements must assure than an adequate source of water is available to serve the project. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Water Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that water service will be available for the proposed project subject to water mains being extended within the proposed development. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Water Division has conducted a water supply assessment for the project, dated July 26, 2017 which concludes that there is adequate supply to serve the project under the proposed land use configuration (see Exhibit D for Water Supply Assessment).
As a condition of approval, any pre-existing on-site domestic or agricultural water wells as well as any septic systems that may be on site shall be properly destroyed in accordance with all applicable State and County Health standards and regulations.
Occupancy of the site will generate wastewater containing human waste, which is required to be conveyed and treated by the Fresno- Clovis Regional Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility. There will not be any onsite wastewater treatment system. The project will be requir ed to install sewer mains and branches and to pay connection and sewer facility fees to provide for reimbursement of preceding investments in sewer trunks to connect this site to a publicly owned treatment works.
Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno UWMP, Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-47-
Management Plan and the applicable MEIR mitigation measures will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.
c – e. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incor porated. The project proposes amending the General Plan to change the land use designations on the site which could impact drainage and runoff. The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) reviewed the project and, in a letter dated July 19, 2017, found that the existing storm drainage facilities on part of the parcel lack the capacity to accommodate the expected increased runoff generated by the proposed commercial land uses . To mitigate the impact on runoff and drainage, FMFCD conditions of approval on the project require the developer to make improv ements to the existing or proposed pipeline system to increase the capacity, or use a permanent peak reducing facility to eliminate adverse impacts on the exis ting system (see Exhibit F) . With these project -specific mitigation measures incorporated this impact is less than significant. g – j. No Impact The project area is within Flood Zone X, an area determined to be outside the .2% annual chance (also known as the 500- year) floodplain (FEMA 2009).
No part of the project is within a 100- year floodplain and therefore this project will have no impact on housing or other structures in 100- year floodplains. There are no sources of flooding due to dams or levees near the project area (City of Fresno 2011).
Official Statewide Tsunami Inundation Maps, coordinated by California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), are developed for all populated areas at risk to tsunamis in California. According to Cal OES’ MY HAZARD website and Official Statewide Tsunami Inundation Maps, the Planning Area is located outside a tsu nami hazard zone (OES 2017).
A seiche is a “standing” wave oscillating in a body of water. This phenomenon occurs in large bodies of water such as bays and lakes. A seiche may occur in any semi - or fully- enclosed body of water. They can be caused by strong winds and earthquakes. There are no bodies of water capable of producing a seiche in the project area. The project area is not susceptible to soil erosion. No impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are expected to occur at the project site.
In conclusion, with the project specific mitigation measures related to hydrology/utilities and service systems incorporated, the project will not result in any hydrology or water quality impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-48-
Mitigation Measures:
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hydrology/utilities and services systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
2. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hydrology/utilities and services systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-49-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable
land use p lan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
X
a and c. No Impact . The proposed project is just outside of Fresno City limits and on the edge of an urbanized area and will not physically divide an established community.
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) or other adopted local, regional or state HCP involving the subject area.
Therefore, development will not result in any impacts to an adopted HCP or NCCP. b. Less than Significant . The project includes a proposed amendment to the Fresno General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation on the subject site for the purposes of facilitating future development. The project prop oses to amend the Fresno General Plan from the following land use designations: Medium Density Residential (19.25 acres), Urban Neighborhood ( 29.44 acres), Community Commercial (10.11 acres ), Office ( 37.69 acres) and Community Park ( 19.09 acres ), to Medium Density Residential ( 54.48 acres ), Community Commercial ( 2.4 acres ), Regional Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-50-
Commercial ( 22.52 acres ), Park (9.63 acres ) and the Public Facility – College designation ( 26.55 acres ). Although this amendment represents a change to the General Plan Land Use Map, it is in keeping with the following land use policies and goals of the General Plan:
Fresno General Plan Goal 7. Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportuniti es, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city.
Fresno General Plan Goal 8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.
These goals are supported by General Plan policies, including:
UF-1-e Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans. Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
UF-1-f Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.
The proposed project includes land designated for park, community college, commercial and residential uses, and therefore supports the development of complete neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed project does not propose a change which will result in the loss of planned land uses essential to serve the public or planned urban form, and will therefore not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Fresno. Therefore the project’s impact is less than significant.
In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any land use and planning environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-51-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
Background
The California Geological Survey conducted a study of the Fresno Production- Consumption Region in 1999 to analyze the mineral resources in the area. According to that study, the principal area for mineral resources is located in and immediately adjacent to the Planning Area along the San Joaquin River Corridor (California Geologic Survey 1999). These materials are removed via surface mining operations. These areas have been and are designated as Open Space, and the activities continue to require conditional use permits. The City anticipates that these uses will continue until the resources are substantially removed, and it is no longer economically feasible to mine the areas.
a and b. No Impact. There are no known mineral resources of significant value within the project area (California Geologic Survey 1999). The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of either known mineral source that would be valuable to the region or state, nor would it result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. In conclusion, the proposed project would not r esult in any mineral resource environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-52-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE -- Would the project
result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-53-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Background
In developed areas of the community, noise conflicts often occur when a noise sensitive land use is located adjacent to a noise generator. Noise in these situations frequently stems from on-site operations, use of outdoor equipment, uses where large numbers of people assemble, and vehicular traffic. Some land uses, such as residential dwellings are considered noise sensitive receptors and involve land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be s ubject to stress and/or significant interference from noise.
Generally the three sources of substantial noise that affect the City of Fresno and its residents are transportation-related and consist of major streets and regional highways; airport operations at the Fresno Yosemite International, Fresno- Chandler Executive, and the Sierra Sky Park Airports; and railroad operations along the BNSF Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad lines. The General Plan Noise Element establishes 65 dBA Community Noise Equiv alent Level (CNEL) as the standard for desirable maximum average exterior noise levels.
a – d. Less than Significant.
Short Term Noise Impacts
The construction of a project involves short -term, construction-related noise as well as groundborne vibration . Pursuant to t he Fresno General Plan MEIR, as set forth by Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 10- 109- Exemptions, the provisions of Article 1- Noise Regulations of the FMC shall not apply to:
Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the City or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-54-
work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a .m. and 10:00 p. m. on any day except Sunday.
Thus, although development activities associated with building -out of the of the Planning Area could potentially result in temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ( City of Fresno 2014a), construction activity would be exempt from the City of Fresno’s noise regulation, as long as such activity is conducted with an appropriate construction permit and during the hours of 7:00 a. m. and 10:00 p.m., excluding Sunday. Therefore, short -term construction impacts associated w ith the exposure of person to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.
Long Term Impacts
The project site wi ll be exposed to increased vehicular traffic noise due to increased traffic volumes on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Church Avenue and Jensen Avenue. The General Plan Noise and Safety Figure NS -3 (Future Noise Contour s-Vehicle), shows the 60 to 65 dB noise contour extending 440 feet north from the Jensen Avenue centerline and a 65 to 70 dB noise contour extending 147 feet north from the Jensen Avenue centerline. A Traffic Impact Study, dated July 19, 2017 was completed by the Department of Public Works, Traffic and Engineering Division for this project, comparing current General Plan land use designations to proposed land use designations. The study found that the proposed project would result in fewer trips than anticipated by the current General Plan land uses. The General Plan sets a maximum average outdoor standard of 65 dBA for sensitive uses. The proposed use alon g Jensen is regional commercial, which is not a sensitive use. It is expected with landscaping and building setbacks and the use of sound absor bent materials, the projected on- site noise levels should fall within the City’s Noise and Safety Element standards. Therefore, long term impacts associated with the exposure of person to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant. e and f. No Impact. This project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or a private airstrip. Therefore this project will not result in any impacts related to airport uses.
In conclusion, the project will not result in any noise impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-55-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND
HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial num bers
of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Background
The Fresno General Plan projects a population 780,600 by the year 2035. The General Plan is anticipated to accommodate up to approximately 425,000 additional persons for a total of 970,000 persons within the Planning Area by the buildout year of 2056. In addition, the General Plan area is projected to accommodate approximately 145,000 additional housing units for a total of approximately 332,000 units by the buildout year of 2056.
a. Less than Significant Impact. The project parcels currently have four residences, of which one is occupied. The proposed amendment to the General P lan and p rezone would prezone the parcels from Limited Agriculture (Fresno County AL- 20 zoning) to Residential Single Family (Fresno City RS -5) for 54.48 acres, Community Commercial (CC) for 2.4 acre s, Commercial-Regional (CR) for 22.52 acres, Parks and Recreation (PR) for 9.63 acres and Public and Institutional (PI) for 26.52 acres. This proposed Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-56-
rezoning would be for the purposes of facilitating annexation to the City of Fresno and future development of the property with an educational facility, a park, a residential neighborhood, and commercial uses. The proposed project will increase the number of residential units on the parcels compared to the existing. This mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project is tiered from the General Plain MEIR which contains measures to mitigate projects population impacts. Therefore the purpose of this initial study is to evaluated potential project -related impacts which not evaluated fully within the scope of the MEIR.
Although the project is currently outside of Fresno city limits, as part of the Sphere o f Influence it was included i n the General Plan Land Use Map and analyzed as a part of the MEIR. The proposed project will amend the residential land uses from 19.25 acres of Medium Density Single- Family Residential (with the potential for 96 - 231 dwelling units) and 29.44 acres of U rban Neighborhood (with the potential for 471 - 883 units) with 54.48 acres of Medium Density Single-Family Residential (with the potential for 272 – 653 units). The proposed project represents between 295 and 461 units fewer units being developed than considered in the General Plan. Therefore the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on population growth in the area. b and c. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will displace four existing residential structures, only one of which is currently occupied. No sites identified in the General Plan Housing Element will be affected by this project. Therefore the proposed project does not have the potential to displace substantial numbers of existing housing or persons as a result of development.
In conclusion, the proposed project w ill not result in any population environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-57-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES --
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Drainage and flood control? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Schools? X
vi) Other public services? X
i – ii and iv – vi. Less than Significant. The site is approximately 1 mile from the nearest fire stat ion. This distance is approved for single family residences and commercial projects. The Fire Department has submitted conditions that will be required as conditions of approval for the proposed project (see Exhibit F) . The City of Fresno Police Department will serve the project and the project will pay any required impact fees at the time of building permits. The demand for schools generated by the project is within the planned projections of the Washington Unified school district, and the applicant will p ay impact fees at the time of building permits. The project would not Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-58-
increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project would introduce new park land into the neighborhood. See Recreation below for f urther discussion of the park -related impacts associated with this project. This project will have a less than significant impact on fire, police, schools and park facilities.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated. Please see Hydrology and Water Quality above for a discussion of the projects impacts on drainage and flood control.
In conclusion, with the project specific mitigation measures related to hydrology/utilities and service systems incorporated, the project will not result in any public service impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hydrology/utilities and services systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-59-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational faciliti es or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
a. Less than Significant Impact. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional par ks or other recreational facilities. The project would introduce new park land into the neighborhood. The proposed project will also include up to 653 housing units. As of the 2010 decennial census, the average household size in Fresno city is 3.09 persons per household ( City of Fresno 2017, 2- 7). Using that number, the project would increase the population by approximately 2,018 people. The General Plan parks goal is 3 acres per 1,000 people, meaning the new population would need just over 6 acres of new parkland to meet the General Plan goal . The proposed park acreage, 9.63 acres, is more than adequate to serve the expected project population. This project will have a less than significant impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks.
b. Less Than Si gnificant Impact. The project area consists of vacant land and four rural residences. This project consists of a plan amendment, prezone and annexation proposal for future development of the property, include 9.63 acres for park space. This project does not include or require the construction of recreational facilities that may have an adverse effect on the environment, therefore t he proposed project ’s Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-60-
recreational facilities will have a less than significant impact on the environment in the area.
In conclu sion, the proposed project would not result in any recreation environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-61-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/
TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable
plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of
transportation including mass
transit and non- motorized travel
and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including but not limited
to level of service standards and
travel demand measures or other
standards established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in
substantial safety risks?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-62-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the perfor mance or
safety of such facilities?
X
a – b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is comprised of approximately 115.95 acres of pr operty bounded by E Church Avenue on the north, S Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard on the east, E Jensen Avenue on the south and Knight Avenue on the west. The site is adjacent to low -density residential and open space, and across the street from Rutherford B Gaston Elementary school.
The Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Divisi on conducted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), dated July 19, 2017, for the project. That Traffic Impact Study, “Plan Amendment and Pr ezone for the Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Jensen Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard- Traffic Impact Study” together with the findings and mitigation measures of those documents are incorporated herein by reference. The analysis found that the project is expected to generate 26,279 average daily trips (ADT) including 1,554 morning peak hour trips and 2,50 3 evening peak hour trips. These numbers were compared to the trip generations projected by the land use designations in the General Plan and found that this project would result in 5,020 fewer ADT, with 1,198 fewer morning peak hour trips and 829 fewer evening peak hour trips.
Per the Fresno General Plan, the City is divided into four traffic impact zones (TIZ), representing an acceptable level of service (LOS) for each zone. Analysis results were Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-63-
evaluated against the corresponding TIZ LOS. For intersect ions bounded by two or more TIZ, the more conservative TIZ standard was considered for impacts and mitigation measures. The TIS analysis indicates that the expected proposed project will impact several intersections , bringing their LOS to below standards. A summary of the project specific mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Impact Study is listed below:
Location Improvements/Mitigation Measures
California Ave at
Walnut Ave
• Install a traffic signal with left-turn phasing
• Restripe/widen the north bound and southbound
approaches from a shared left-through-right lane
to one left -turn lane and a shared through- right
lane
Church Ave at
Walnut Ave
• Install a traffic signal with left-turn phasing
• Restripe/widen the northbound , southbound,
westbound and e astbound approaches from a
shared left -through-right lane to one left -turn
lane and a shared through-right lane
Church Ave at
MLK Blvd
• Restripe/widen the southbound , westbound and
eastbound approaches from one left -turn lane
and a shared through right lane to one left -turn
lane, one through lane and one right- turn lane
Jensen Ave at
Walnut Ave
• Install a traffic signal with left-turn phasing
• Restripe/widen the northbound and southbound
approaches from a shared left-through-right lane
to one left -turn lane and a shared through- right
lane
• Restripe/widen the east bound and westbound
approaches from a shared left -through-right lane
to one left -turn lane, one through lane and a
shared through-right lane
Jensen Ave at
Elm Ave
• Restripe/widen the southbound, west bound and
eastbound approaches from one left -turn lane,
one through lane and a shared through- right to
one left -turn lane, two through lanes and one
right-turn lane
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-64-
The developer of the project will be required to pay the T raffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Fee per the Master Fee Schedule at the time of building permits. The TSMI fee facilitates project impact mitigation to the City of Fresno Traffic Signal infrastructure so that costs are applied to each new project/building based on the generated AD T. The TSMI fee is credited against traffic signal installation/modifications and/or Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements (constructed at their ultimate location) that plan to build out in the General Plan circulation element and are included in the Nexus Study for the TSMI fee. With the project specific mitigation measures incorporated, the impact of the proposed project on city traffic standards is less than significant. b – f. No Impact. The passage of A.B. 2419 in 1996 allowed counties t o opt out of the California Congestion Management Program. In 1997, the Fresno COG Policy Board rescinded the Fresno County Congestion Management Program. Therefore this project will not impact a county congestion management program. This project is not within an airport land use plan and will have no impact on air traffic patterns. This project is currently at the conceptual stage, future entitlements with detailed site plans will be required prior to the issuance of building permits, these plans will be r eviewed by Traffic Engineering, and the Fire Department . The project is in keeping with the City of Fresno’s Active Transportation Plan; it includes the development of a Class I trail along the south side of Church and a Class I trail along the north side of Jensen Avenue, both of which are called for in the Active Transportation Plan.
In conclusion, the proposed project , with project specific mitigation measures incorporated, would not result in any transportation/traffic environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The proposed project shall implement the Transportation and Traffic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-65-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
X
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
X
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve t he project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-66-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) 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?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a – b, d – g. Less than Signific ant. The Department of Public Utilities completed a water supply assessment (WSA), dated August 2, 2017 pursuant to Water Code Section 10910 and is attached and incorporated by reference to this initial study. The WSA concludes that there is adequate supply to serve the project under the proposed land use configuration (see Exhibit D for Water Supply Assessment).
The Department of Public Utilities has also determined that adequate sanitary sewer will be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees; compliance with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies; the rules and r egulations of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Health Services; and, implementation of the City - wide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply, treatment, and storage. The project s ite will be serviced by solid waste division and will have water and sewer facilities available subject to the conditions of approval stipulated for the proposed project (see Exhibit F). Therefore the impact of this project on water supply, treatment and s torage, as well as landfill facilities will be less than significant.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-67-
c. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project proposes amending the General Plan to change the land use designations on the site, which could impact drainage and runoff. The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) reviewed the project and in a letter dated July 19, 2017, found that the existing storm drainage facilities on part of the parcel lack the capacity to accommodate the expected increased runoff gen erated by the proposed commercial land uses. To mitigate the impact on runoff and drainage, FMFCD conditions of approval on the project require the developer to make improvements to the existing or proposed pipeline system to increase the capacity, or use a permanent peak reducing facility to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system (see Exhibit F).
In conclusion, with the project specific mitigation measures related to hydrology/utilities and service systems incorporated, the project will not result in any utility and service system impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hydrology/utilities and services systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated August 2, 2017.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-68-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, thre aten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impact s
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects , and the effects
of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-69-
The proposed project is considered to be proposed at a size and scope which is neither a direct or indirect detriment to the quality of the environment through reductions in habitat, populations, or examples of local history (through either individual or cumulative impacts).
The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or reduce the habitat of wildlife species and will not threaten plant communities or endanger any floral or faunal species. Furthermore the project has no potential to eliminate important examples of major periods in history.
Therefore, as noted in preceding sections of this Initial Study, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that incremental environmental impacts facilitated by this project would be cumulatively significant. There is also no evidence in the record that the proposed project would have any adverse impacts directly, or indirectly, on human beings.
In summary, given the mitigation measures required of the proposed project and the analysis detailed in the preceding Initial Study, the proposed project:
Does not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly nor indirectly.
Does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish/wildlife or native plant species (or cause their population to drop below self-sustaining levels), does not threaten to eliminate a native plant or animal community, and does not threaten or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Does not eliminate important examples of elements of California history or prehistory.
Does not have impacts which would be cumulatively considerable even though individually limited.
Therefore, there are no mandatory findings of significance and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not warranted for this project.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-70-
References
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2016. “Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland 2014, Sheet 2 of 2.” Accessed July 1, 2017,
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Fresno.aspx.
California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey [California Geologic Survey]. 2003. “Earthquake Shaking Potential for California.” Accessed July 7 2017. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha.
_____. 2017. “Official Tsunami Inundation Maps.” Accessed July 7, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps #Interactive.
_____. 2007. Special Publication 42: Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation.
_____. 1999. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region (parts of Fresno and Madera counties).
California. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017 “Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS).” Accessed July 14.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
California Department of Transportation [Caltrans]. 2017. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System.” Accessed July 7.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board [ARB]. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Sacramento: CalEPA.
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]. 2017 “EnviroStor.” Accessed July 13.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Office of Emergency Services [OES]. 2015. “MyHazards” Accessed July 7, 2017. http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/.
City of Fresno. 2017. 2015-2023 Housing Element. Fresno: City of Fresno.
Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study
EA No. A-17-007/R-17-010/TMP-17-06/ANX-17-005
August 2, 2017
-71-
_____. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Fresno: City of Fresno. _____. 2014a. Fresno General Plan MEIR. Fresno: City of Fresno. _____. 2014b. General Plan. Fresno: City of Fresno.
_____. 2011. Map Atlas: Existing Conditions Report. Fresno: City of Fresno.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service [NPS]. 1997. Accessed July 7, 2017. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a.
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. 2009. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center” Accessed July 7, 2017. https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
Fresno County, Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC]. 2000. Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Fresno: Fresno County of Governments.
LSA Associates. 2017. “Memorandum: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis:
115.96 acres project near East Jensen and South Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard in the City of Fresno.” July 26.
EXHIBIT B
City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code Update Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for Environmental Assessment No.
A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005
Conducted for Application No(s). A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005, August 2, 2017
PURSUANT TO CERTIFIED MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR) SCH No. 2012111015 A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-wide Program
F - Not Applicable
The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.
This mitigation measure m onitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). It was certified as part of the Fresno City Council’s approval of the MEIR for the Fresno General Plan update (Fresno City Council Resolution 2014-225, adopted December 18, 2014).
Letter designations to the right of each MEIR mitigation measure listed in this Exhibit note how the mitigation measure relates to the environmental assessment of the above- listed project, according to the key found at right and at the bottoms of the following pages:
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Section 5.1 - Aesthetics:
MM AES-1. Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.
Verification comments:
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
(PW) and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept. (DARM)
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Aesthetics (continued):
MM AES-2: Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.
Verification comments:
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
DARM. X
MM AES-3: Lighting systems for non- residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.
Verification comments:
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
DARM X
MM AES-4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT -L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0
horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT -L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater
Verification comments:
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Aesthetics (continued):
MM AES-5: Materials used on building facades shall be non- reflective.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
Section 5.3 - Air Quality:
MM AIR-1: Projects that include five or more heavy -duty truck deliveries per day with sensitive receptors located within 300 feet of the truck loading area shall provide a screening analysis to determine if the project has the potential to exceed criteria pollutant concentration based standards and
thresholds for NO2 and PM2.5. If projects exceed screening criteria, refined dispersion modeling and health risk
assessment shall be accomplished and if needed, mitig ation measures to reduce impacts shall be included in the project to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. Mitigation
measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less.
Verification comments:
Analysis to be
completed prior
to development
project approval;
posting of signs
to be completed
prior to use of
truck unloading/
loading areas
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Air Quality (continued):
MM AIR-2: Projects that result in an increased cancer risk of 10 in a million or exceed criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards shall implement site- specific measures that reduce toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure to reduce excess cancer risk to less than 10 in a million. Possible control measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less • Construct block walls to reduce the flow of emissions toward sensitive receptors
• Install a vegetative barrier downwind from the TAC source that can absorb a portion of the diesel PM emissions
• For projects proposing to locate a new building containing sensitive receptors near existing sources of TAC emissions, install HEPA filters in HVAC systems to reduce TAC emission levels exceeding risk thresholds.
• Install heating and cooling services at truck stops to eliminate the need for idling during overnight stops to run onboard systems.
(continued on next page)
Control
measures to be
incorporated into
project design
prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Air Quality (continued):
MM AIR-2 (continued from previous page):
• For large distribution centers where the owner controls the vehicle fleet, provide facilities to support alternative fueled trucks powered by fuels such as natural gas or bio-diesel • Utilize electric powered material handling equipment where feasible for the weight and volume of material to be moved.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM AIR-3: Require developers proposing projects on ARB’s list of projects in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook) warranting special consideration to prepare a cumulative health risk assessment when sensitive receptors are located within the distance scr eening criteria of the facility as listed in the ARB Handbook or newer regulatory criteria that may be adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)..
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Air Quality (continued):
MM AIR-4: Require developers of projects containing
sensitive receptors to provide a cumulative health risk assessment at project locations exceeding ARB Land Use
Handbook distance screening criteria or newer regulatory criteria that may be adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MM AIR-5: Require developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD to prepare an odor
impact assessment and to impl ement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City to the extent
needed to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources:
MM BIO-1: Construction of a proposed project should avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special -status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special - status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any special - status species. If a special-status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project sit e, avoidance and
minimization measures shall be incorporated into the
construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
and during the
construction
phase of the
project
DARM
X
MM BIO-2: Direct or incidental take of any state or federally listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the C alifornia
Department of Fish and Wildlife (C DFW) 2081 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10
permitting processes must take place prior to any action that (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
MM BIO-2 (continued from previous page)
may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species.
Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case- by-case basis through agency consultation.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM BIO-3: Development within the Planning Area should
avoid, where possible, special-status natural communities and vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special -status natural community or suitable habitat for special -status species, compensatory habitat -based mitigation is required under CEQA and the California
Endangered Species Act ( CESA). Mitigation will consist of preserving on- site habitat, restoring similar habitat or purchasing off-site credits from an approved mitigation bank.
Compensatory mitigation will be determined through
consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio will be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special-status natural communities to a less than significant (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
MM BIO-3 (continued from previous page):
level. Agreed-upon mitigation ratios will depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special -status species. The specific mitigation for project level impacts will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM BIO-4: Proposed projects within the Planning Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species
protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre- construction clearance survey must be conducted to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
and during
construction
activities
DARM
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
BIO-4 (continued from previous page):
may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM BIO-5: If a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special -status natural community with potential to occur in the Planning Area, compensatory habitat -based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must
involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off - site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community. Mitigation must be
conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat -based mitigation will be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency ( i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS) on a case- by-case basis.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
MM BIO-6: Project impacts that occur to riparian habitat may also result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. CDFW and/or consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers ( USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , determination of
mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, shall be implemented as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
MM BIO-7: Project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a special-status natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special -status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. Project impacts to special -status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special-status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
MM BIO-8: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be impleme nted in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland. .
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM
X
MM BIO-9: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and
construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval;
but for long-term
operational
BMPs, prior to
issuance of
occupancy
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Biological Resources (continued):
MM BIO-9 (continued from previous page):
incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project - related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
Section 5.5 - Cultural Resources:
MM CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-1 (continued from previous page)
recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -approved institution or person who is capable of providing long -germ preservation to allow future scientific study.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.
If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-2 (continued from previous page)
archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate measures for significant res ources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures t o protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of (continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-2 (further continued from previous two pages)
providing long -term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The
resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and
construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during
excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure (continued on next page)
[see Page 14] [see Page 14]
Cultural Resources (continued):
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
MM CUL-2 (further continued from previous three pages)
identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed. .
Verification comments:
[see Page 14] [see Page 14]
MM CUL-3: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontologic
al/geological resources shall be
conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commenc e. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are
discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-3 (continued from previous page)
measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -approved institution or person who is capable of providing long -term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resour ces could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery
(continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-3 (further continued from previous two pages)
excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknow n resources shall be followed.
Verification comments:
[see Page 16] [see Page 16]
MM CUL-4: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future
development project, all activity shall cease immediately.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Cultural Resources (continued):
MM CUL-4 (continued from previous page)
likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains.
Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or
disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' pre ferences for treatment.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Section 5.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Re-designate the existing vacant land proposed for low density residential use, located northwest of the intersection of East Garland Avenue and North Dearing
Avenue and within Fresno Yosemite International Airport Zone 1-RPZ, to Open Space.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals
DARM X
MM HAZ-2: Limit the proposed low density residential at (1 to 3 dwelling units per acre) located northwest of the airport , and located within Fresno Yosemite International Airport
Zone 3-Inner Turning Area, to 2 dwelling units per acre or less.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals
DARM X
MM HAZ-3: Re -designate the current area located within Fresno Yosemite International Airport Zone 5-Sideline
northeast of the airport to Public Facilities -Airport or Open Space.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued):
MM HAZ-4: Re-designate the current vacant lots located at the northeast corner of Kearney Boulevard and South Thorne Avenue to Public Facilities-Airport or Open Space.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals
DARM X
MM HAZ-5: Prohibit residential uses within Safety Zone 1 northwest of the Hawes Avenue and South Thorne Avenue
intersection.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals
DARM X
MM HAZ-6: Establish an alternative Emergency Operations Center in the event the current Emergency Operations Center is under redevelopment or blocked.
Verification comments:
Prior to
redevelopment
of the current
Emergency
Operations
Center
Fresno Fire
Department
and Mayor/
City Manager’s
Office
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Section 5.9 - Hydrology and Water Quality:
MM HYD-1: The City shall develop and implement water
conservation measures to reduce the per capita water use to 215 gallons per capita per day.
Verification comments:
Prior to water
demand
exceeding water
supply
Department of
Public Utilities
(DPU)
X
MM HYD-2: The City shall continue to be an active participant in the Kings Water Authority and the implementation of the Kings Basin IRWMP.
Verification comments:
Ongoing DPU X
MM HYD-5.1: The City and partnering agencies shall
implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan collection systems to less than significant.
• Implement the existing Storm Drainage Master Plan
(SDMP) for collection systems in drainage areas where the amount of imperviousness is unaffected by the change in land uses.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
exceedance of
capacity of
existing
stormwater
drainage
facilities
Fresno
Metropolitan
Flood Control
District
(FMFCD),
DARM, and
PW
X X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued):
HYD-5.1 (continued from previous page)
• Update the SDMP in those drainage areas where the
amount of imperviousness increased due to the change in land uses to determine the changes in the collection
systems that would need to occur to provide adequate
capacity for the stormwater runoff from the increased
imperviousness.
• Implementation of the updated SDMP to provide
stormwater collection systems that have sufficient capacity to convey the peak runoff rates from the areas of increased imperviousness.
Require developments that increase site imperviousness to install, operate, and maintain FMFCD approved on- site
detention systems to reduce the peak runoff rates resulting from the increased imperviousness to the peak runoff rates that will not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater collection systems.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued):
MM HYD-5.2: The City and partnering agencies shall
implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan retention basins to less than significant:
Consult the SDMP to analyze the impacts to existing and planned retention basins to determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on retention basin capacity to less than significant. Remedial measures would include:
• Increase the size of the retention basin through the purchase of more land or deepening the basin or a combination for planned retention basins.
• Increase the size of the emergency relief pump capacity required to pump excess runoff volume out of the basin and into adjacent canal that convey the stormwater to a disposal facility for existing retention basins.
• Require developments that increase runoff volume to install, operate, and maintain, Low Impact Development (LID)
measures to reduce runoff volume to the runoff volume that will not exceed the capacity of the existing retention basins.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceedance of
capacity of
existing retention
basin facilities
FMFCD,
DARM, and
PW
X X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued):
MM HYD-5.3: The City and partnering agencies shall
implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan urban detention (stormwater quality) basins to less than significant.
Consult the SDMP to determine the impacts to the urban
detention basin weir overflow rates and determine remedial measures required to reduce the impact on the detention basin capacity to less than significant. Remedial measures would include:
• Modify overflow weir to maintain the suspended solids removal rates adopted by the FMFCD Board of Directors.
• Increase the size of the urban detention basin to increase residence time by purchasing more land. The existing
detention basins are already at the adopted design depth. • Require developments that increase runoff volume to
install, operate, and maintain, Low Impact Development
(LID) measures to reduce peak runoff rates and runoff
volume to the runoff rates and volumes that will not exceed the weir overflow rates of the existing urban detention basins.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceedancesof
capacity of
existing urban
detention basin
(stormwater
quality) facilities
FMFCD,
DARM, and
PW
X
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued):
MM HYD-5.4: The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the impacts on the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage Master Plan pump disposal systems to less than significant.
• Consult the SDMP to determine the extent and degree to which the capacity of the existing pump system will be
exceeded.
• Require new developments to install, operate, and maintain FMFCD design standard on-site detention facilities to reduce peak stormwater runoff rates to existing planned peak runoff rates.
• Provide additional pump system capacity to maximum
allowed by existing permitting to increase the capacity to match or exceed the peak runoff rates determined by the SDMP update.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceedance of
capacity of
existing pump
disposal systems
FMFCD,
DARM, and
PW
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued):
MM HYD-5.5: The City shall work with FMFC D to develop and adopt an update to the SDMP for the Southeast
Development Area that is would be adequately designed to collect, convey and dispose of runoff at the rates and volumes which would be generated by the planned land uses in th at area.
Verification comments:
Prior to
development
approvals in the
Southeast
Development
Area
FMFCD,
DARM, and
PW
X
Section 5.13 - Public Services:
MM PS-1: As future fire facilities are planned, the fire department shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from fire facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce these impacts includes:
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks on the fire department sites. • Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation and a “keep clear zone” during emergency responses.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures on the fire department sites.
Verification comments:
During the
planning process
for future fire
department
facilities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Public Services (continued):
MM PS-2: As future police facilities are planned, the Police Department shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from police facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts from police department facilities includes:
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks on the police department sites.
• Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures on the Police Department sites.
Verification comments:
During the
planning process
for future Police
Department
facilities
DARM X
MM PS-3: As future public and private school facilities are planned, school districts shall evaluate if specific
environmental effects would occur with regard to public schools, and DARM shall evaluate other school facilities .
Typical impacts from school facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts from school facilities includes:
(continued on next page)
During the
planning process
for future school
facilities
DARM, local
school districts,
and the
Division of the
State Architect
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Public Services (continued):
MM PS-3 (continued from previous page)
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on school sites.
• Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures for stadium lights.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM PS-4: As future parks and recreational facilities are planned, the City shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from parks and
recreational facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting.
Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts from these facilities includes:
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on school sites.
• Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures for outdoor play area/field lights.
Verification comments:
During the
planning process
for future park
and recreation
facilities
DARM X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Public Services (continued):
MM PS-5: As future court, library, detention, and hospital facilities are planned, the appropriate agencies and DARM, when the City has jurisdiction, shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from court, library, detention, and hospital facilities includ e noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce these potential impacts includes:
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on school sites.
• Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
• Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on outdoor lighting fixtures
Verification comments:
During the
planning process
for future
detention, court,
library, and
hospital facilities
DARM, to the
extent that
agencies
approving/
constructing
these facilities
are subject to
City of Fresno
regulation
X
Section 5.15 - Utilities and Service Systems
MM USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a
wastewater master plan update.
Verification comments:
Prior to
wastewater
conveyance and
treatment
demand
exceeding
capacity
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-2: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additio nal capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements:
• Construct an approximately 70 MGD expansion of the
Regional Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility
and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the
generation of wastewater is increased.
• Construct an approximately 0.49 MGD expansion of the
North Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased
.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
existing
wastewater
treatment
capacity
DPU X
MM USS-3: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
exceeding
existing
wastewater
treatment
capacity
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-3 (continued from previous page):
After approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements:
• Construct an approximately 24 MGD wastewater treatment facility within the Southeast Development Area and obtain revised waste discharge requirements as the generation of wastewater is increased.
• Construct an approximately 9.6 MGD expansion of the
Regional Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility
and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the
generation of wastewater is increased
.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM USS-4: Prior to construction, a Traffic Control/Traffic Management Plan to address traffic impacts during
construction of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared and implemented, subject to approval by the City ( and Fresno County, when work is being done in unin corporated area roadways). The plan shall identify hours of construction and for deliveries , haul routes, access and parking restrictions, pavement markings and signage; and it shall include the (continued on next page)
Prior to
construction of
water and sewer
facilities
PW for work in
the City; PW
and Fresno
County Public
Works when
unincorporated
area roadways
are involved
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-4 (continued from previous page):
notification plan, and coordination with emergency service providers and schools.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MM USS-5: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing wastewater collection system facilities, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve
additional development that would generate additional
wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until
additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided. • Orange Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be
improved between Dakota and Jensen Avenues.
Approximately 37,240 feet of new sewer main shall be
installed and approximately 5,760 feet of existing sewer main shall be rehabilitated. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 27 inches to 42 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater
Master Plan are RS03A, RL02, C01-REP, C02-REP, C03-
REP, C04-REP, C05-REP, C06-REL and C07-REP.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
exceeding
capacity within
the existing
wastewater
collection system
facilities
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-5 (continued from previous page)
• Marks Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be
improved between Clinton Avenue and Kearney
Boulevard. Approximately 12,150 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 33 inches to 60 inches in diameter. The
associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater
Master Plan are CM1-REP and CM2-REP.
• North Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be
improved between Polk and Fruit Avenues and also
between Orange and Maple Avenues. Approximately
25,700 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The
size of the new sewer main shall range from 48 inches to 66 inches in diameter. The associated project
designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are
CN1-REL1 and CN3-REL1.
• Ashlan Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be
improved b etween Hughes and West Avenues and also
between Fruit and Blackstone Avenues. Approximately
9,260 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 24 inches
(continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-5 (further continued from previous two pages):
to 36 inches in diameter. The associated project
designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are
CA1-REL and CA2-REP.
Verification comments:
[see Page 34] [see Page 34]
MM USS-6: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing 28 pipeline segments shown in Figures 1 and 2 in MEIR
Appendix J-1, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the
capacity of one of the 28 pipeline segments until additional capacity is provided.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
capacity within
the existing 28
pipeline seg-
ments shown in
Figures 1 and 2
in Appendix J-1
of the MEIR
DPU X
MM USS-7: Prior to exceeding existing water supply capacity, the City shall evaluate the water supply system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
exceeding
existing water
supply capacity
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
USS-7 (continued from previous page)
• Construct an approximately 80 million gallon per day
(MGD) surface water treatment facility near the intersection of Armstrong and Olive Avenues, in accordance with
Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update (2014 Metro
Plan Update) Phase 2 Report, dated January 2012.
• Construct an approximately 30 MGD expansion of the
existing northeast surface water treatment facility for a total capacity of 60 MGD, in accordance with Chapter 9 and
Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct an approximately 20 MGD surface water
treatment facility in the southwest portion of the City, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2014
Metro Plan Update.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-8: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional
development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until ad ditional capacity is provided.
The following capacity improvements shall be provided by approximately 2025.
• Construct 65 new groundwater wells, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update. • Construct a 2.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T2) near the intersection of Clovis and
California Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and
Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T3) near the intersection of Temperance and
Dakota Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
exceeding
capacity within
the existing
water
conveyance
facilities
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-8 (continued from previous page)
• Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T4) in the Downtown Planning Area, in
accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2014
Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T5) near the intersection of Ashlan and
Chestnut Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and
Figure 9-1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T6) near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Highway 99, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
• Construct 50.3 miles of regional water transmission mains ranging in size from 24- inch to 48- inch diameter, in
accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2014
Metro Plan Update.
• Construct 95.9 miles of 16-inch diameter transmission grid mains, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2014 Metro Plan Update.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems (continued):
MM USS-9: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional
development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until ad ditional capacity is provided.
The following capacity improvements shall be provided after approximately the year 2025 and additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to a ccommodate full buildout of the General Plan Update.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 1) within the northern part of the
Southeast Development Area.
• Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 2) within the southern part of the
Southeast Development Area.
Additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance
facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan Update.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
capacity within
the existing
water
conveyance
facilities
DPU X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Hydrology and Water Quality USS-10: In order to maintain Fresno Irrigation District canal operability, FMFCD shall m aintain operational intermittent flows during the dry season, within defined channel capacity and downstream capture capabilities, for recharge.
Verification comments:
During the dry
season
Fresno
Irrigation
District (FID)
X
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources:
USS-11: When FMFCD proposes to provide drainage service outside of urbanized areas:
(a) FMFCD shall conduct preliminary investigations on
undeveloped lands outside of highly urbanized areas.
These investigations shall examine wetland hydrology,
vegetation and soil types. These preliminary
investigations shall be the basis for making a
determination on whether or not more in- depth wetland
studies shall be necessary. If the proposed project site does
not exhibit wetland hydrology, support a
prevalence of wetland vegetation and wetland soil types then no further action is required.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
development
approvals
outside of highly
urbanized areas
California
Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
(RWQCB), and
USACE
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-11 (continued from previous page):
(b) Where proposed activities could have an impact on
areas verified by the USACE as jurisdictional wetlands
or waters of the U.S. (urban and rural streams, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools), FMFCD shall obtain the
necessary Clean Water Act, Section 404 permits for
activities where fill material shall be placed in a wetland, obstruct the flow or circulation of waters of the United States, impair or reduce the reach of such waters . ( As part of FMFCD’s Memorandum of Understanding, with
CDFW, Section 404 and 401 permits would be obtained
from the U SACE and RWQCB f or any activity involv ing
filling of jurisdictional waters .) At a minimum, to meet “no net loss policy,
” the permits shall require
replacement of wetland habitat at a 1:1 ratio.
(c) Where proposed activities could have an impact on
areas verified by the USACE as jurisdictional wetlands
or waters of the U.S. (urban and rural streams, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools), FMFCD shall submit and
implement a wetland mitigation plan based on the
wetland acreage verified by the USACE . The wetland
mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist or wetland scientist experienced in wetland creation, and shall include the following or equally effective elements:
(continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-11 (further continued from previous two pages)
i. Specific location, size, and existing hydrology and
soils within the wetland creation area.
ii. Wetland mitigation techniques, seed source,
planting specifications, and required buffer
setbacks. In addition, the mitigation plan shall
ensure adequate water supply is provided to the
created wetlands in order to maintain the proper
hydrologic regimes re quired by the different types
of wetlands created. Provisions to ensure the
wetland water supply is maintained in perpetuity
shall be included in the plan.
iii. A monitoring program for restored, enhanced,
created, and preserved wetlands on the project
site. A monitoring program is required to meet three
objectives; 1) establish a wetland creation success
criteria to be met ; 2) to specify monitoring
methodology; 3) to identify as far as is possible,
specific remedial actions that will be required in
order to ac hieve the success criteria; and 4) to
document the degree of success achieved in
establishing wetland vegetation.
(continued on next page)
[see Page 41] [see Page 41]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-11 (further continued from previous three pages) (d) A monitoring plan shall be developed and implemented by a qualified biologist to monitor results of any on- site wetland restoration and creation for five years. The
monitoring plan shall include specific success criteria, frequency and timing of monitoring , and assessment of
whether or not maintenance activities are being carried out and how these shall be adjusted if necessary.
If monitoring reveals that success criteria are not being met, remedial habitat creation or restoration should be designed and im plemented by a qualified biologist and
subject to five years of monitoring as described above.
Or
(e) In lieu of developing a mitigation plan that outlines the avoidance, purchase, or creation of wetlands, FMFCD
could purchase mitigation credits through a Corps
approved Mitigation Bank.
Verification comments:
[see Page 41] [see Page 41]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS -12: When FMFCD proposes to provide drainage
service outside in areas that support seasonal wetlands or vernal pools:
(a) During facility design and prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities in areas that support seasonal
wetlands or vernal pools, FMFCD shall conduct a
preliminary rare plant assessment. The assessment will determine the likelihood on whether or not the project
site could support rare plants. If it is determined that the project site would not support rare plants, then no further action is required. However, if the project site has the potential to support rare plants; then a rare plant survey shall be conducted. Rare plant surveys shall be
conducted by qualified biologists in accordance with the most current CDFW/USFWS guidelines or protocols and
shall be conducted at the time of year when the plants in question are identifiable.
(b) Based on the results of the survey, prior to design approval, FMFCD shall coordinate with CDF W and/or
implement a Section 7 consultation with USFWS, shall
(continued on next page)
During FMFCD
facility design
and prior to
initiation of
ground
disturbing
activities in
areas that
support seasonal
wetlands or
vernal pools
California
Department of
Fish & Wildlife
(CDFW) and
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-12 (continued from previous page)
determine whether the project facility would result in a significant impact to any special status plant species.
Evaluation of
project impacts shall consider the
following:
• The status of the species in question ( e.g., officially listed by the State or Federal Endangered Species
Acts).
• The relative density and distribution of the on- site occurrence versus typical occurrences of the
species in question.
• The habitat quality of the on- site occurrence relative to historic, current or potential distribution of the
population.
(c) Prior to design approval, and in consultation with the CDFW and/or the USFWS, FMFCD shall prepare and
implement a mitigation plan, in accordance with any
applicable State and/or federal statutes or laws, that
reduces impacts to a less than significant level.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-12 (further continued from previous two pages)
• The habitat quality of the on- site occurrence relative to historic, current or potential distribution of the
population.
(c) Prior to design approval, and in consultation with the CDFW and/or the USFWS, FMFCD shall prepare and
implement a mitigation plan, in accordance with any
applicable State and/or federal statutes or laws, that
reduces impacts to a less than significant level.
Verification comments:
[see Page 45] [see Page 45]
MM USS-13: When FMFCD proposes to provide drainage
service outside in areas that support seasonal wetlands or vernal pools:
(a) During facility design and prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities in areas that support seasonal
wetlands or vernal pools, FMFCD shall conduct a
preliminary survey to determine the presence of listed
vernal pool crustaceans.
(continued on next page)
During facility
design and prior
to initiation of
ground
disturbing
activities in
areas that
support seasonal
wetlands or
vernal pools
CDFW and
USFWS
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-13 (continued from previous page)
(b) If potential habitat (vernal pools, seasonally inundated areas) or fairy shrimp exist within areas proposed to be disturbed, FMFCD shall complete the first and second
phase of fairy shrimp presence or absence surveys. If an absence finding is determined and accepted by the
USFWS, then no further mitigation shall be required for fairy shrimp.
(c) If fairy shrimp are found to be present within vernal pools or other areas of inundation to be impacted by the
implementation of storm drainage facilities, FMFCD shall mitigate impacts on fairy shrimp habitat in accordance
with the USFWS requirements of the Programmatic
Biological Opinion. This shall include on -site or off -site creation and/or preservation of fairy shrimp habitat at ratios ranging from 3:1 to 5:1 depending on the habitat impacted and the choice of on- site or off -site mitigation.
Or mitigation shall be the purchase of mitigation credit through an accredited mitigation bank.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-14: When FMFCD proposes to construct drainage
facilities in an area where elderberry bushes may occur:
(a) During facility design and prior to initiation of
construction activities, FMFCD shall conduct a project - specific survey for all potential Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle (VELB) habitats (elderberry shrubs),
including a stem count and an assessment of hi storic or current VELB habitat.
(b) FMFCD shall avoid and protect all potential identified VELB habitat where feasible.
(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELB mitigation plan in accordance with the most
current USFWS mitigation guidelines for unavoidable
take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 or
Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
The mitigation plan shall include, but might not be limited to, relocation of elderberry shrubs, planting of elderberry shrubs, and monitoring of relocated and planted
elderberry shrubs.
Verification comments:
During facility
design and prior
to initiation of
construction
activities
CDFW and
USFWS
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-15: Prior to ground disturbing activities during nesting season (March through July) for a FMFCD drainage facility project that supports bird nesting habitat, FMFCD shall conduct a survey of trees. If nests are found during the survey, a qualified biologist shall assess the nesting activity on the project site. If active nests are located, no
construction activities shall be allowed within 250 feet of the nest until the young have fledged. If construction activities are planned during the no n -breeding period (August through February), a nest survey is not necessary.
Verification comments:
Prior to ground
disturbing
activities during
nesting season
(March through
July) for a
project that
supports bird
nesting habitat
CDFW and
USFWS
X
MM USS-16: When FMFCD proposes to construct drainage
facilities in an area that supports burrowing owl nesting habitat:
(a) FMFCD shall conduct a pre- construction breeding -
season survey (approximately February 1 through
August 31) of proposed project sites in suitable habitat (e.g., canal berms, open grasslands with suitable
burrows) during the same calendar year that construction is planned to begin. If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed project, the results of the (continued on next page)
Prior to, and
during, the
breeding season
(approximately
February 1
through
August 31) of the
same calendar
year that
construction is
planned to begin
CDFW and
USFWS
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-16 (continued from previous page)
above survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted
(b) During the construction stage, FMFCD shall avoid all burrowing owl nest sites potentially disturbed by project construction during the breeding season while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. The occupied nest
site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to
determine when the nest is no longer used. Avoidance
shall include the establishment of a 160- foot diamet er non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site.
Disturbance of any nest sites shall only occur outside of the breeding season and when the nests are unoccupied
based on monitoring by a qualified biologist. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary
construction fencing.
Based on approval by CDF W, pre -construction and pre-
breeding season exclusion measures may be implemented to preclude burrowing owl occupation of the project site prior to project-related disturbance. Burrowing owls can be passively excluded from potential nest sites in the construction area, either by closing the burrows or placing one-way doors in the (continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems - Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-16 (further continued from previous two pages)
burrows according to current CDF W protocol. Burrows shall be examined not more than 30 days before construction to ensure that no owls have recolonized the area of construction.
For each burrow destroyed, a new burrow shall be created (by installing artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 on protected lands nearby).
Verification comments:
[see Page 49] [see Page 49]
MM USS-17: When FMFCD proposes to construct drainage
facilities in the San Joaquin River corridor:
(a) FMFCD shall not conduct instream activities in the San Joaquin River between October 15 and April 15. If this is not feasible, FMFCD shall consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and CDF W on the appropriate
measures to be implemented in order to protect listed
salmonids in the San Joaquin River.
(b) Riparian vegetation shading the main channel that is removed or damaged shall be replaced at a ratio and
quantity sufficient to maintain the existing shading of the channel. The location of replacement trees on or within (continued on next page)
During instream
activities
conducted
between
October 15 and
April 15
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(NMFS),
CDFW, and
Central Valley
Flood
Protection
Board
(CVFPB)
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems / Biological Resources (continued):
MM USS-17 (continued from previous page)
FMFCD berms, detention ponds or river channels shall
be approved by FMFCD and the Central Valley Flood
Protection Board.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
Utilities and Service Systems – Recreation / Trails:
MM USS-18: When FMFCD updates its District Service Plan:
Prior to final design approval of all elements of the District Services Plan, FMFCD shall consult with Fresno County, City of Fresno, and City of Clovis to determine if any element would temporarily disrupt or permanently displace adopted existing or planned trails and associated recreational facilities as a result of the proposed District Services Plan. If the proposed project would not temporarily disrupt or permanently displace adopted existing or planned trails, no further mitigation is necessary. If the proposed project would have an effect on the trails and associated facilities, FMFCD shall implement the following:
(continued on next page)
Prior to final
design approval
of all elements of
the FMFCD
District Service
Plan
DARM, PW,
City of Clovis,
and County of
Fresno
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems – Recreation / Trails (continued):
MM USS-18 (continued from previous page)
(a) If short-term disruption of adopted existing or planned trails and associated recreational facilities occur, FMFCD shall consult and coordinate with Fresno County, City of Fresno, and City of Clovis to temporarily re- route the trails and associated facilities.
(b) If permanent displacement of the adopted existing or planned trails and associated recreational facilities occur, the appropriate design modifications to prevent permanent displacement shall be implemented in the final project
design or FMFCD shall replace these facilities.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
Utilities and Service Systems – Air Quality:
MM USS-19: When District drainage facilities are
constructed, FMFCD shall:
(a) Minimize idling time of construction equipment vehicles to no more than ten minutes, or require that engines be shut off when not in use.
(continued on next page)
During storm
water drainage
facility
construction
activities
Fresno
Metropolitan
Flood Control
District and
SJVAPCD
X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems – Air Quality (continued):
MM USS-19 (continued from previous page)
(b) Construction shall be curtailed as much as possible when the Air Quality Index (AQI) is above 150. AQI forecasts can be found on the SJVAPCD web site.
(c) Off-road trucks should be equipped with on-road engines if possible.
(d) Construction equipment should have engines that meet the current off-road engine emission standard (as certified by the California Air Resources Board), or be re-powered with an engine that meets this standard.
Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
Utilities and Service Systems – Adequacy of Storm Water Drainage Facilities:
MM USS-20: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing storm water drainage facilities, the City shall coordinate with FMFCD to evaluate the storm water drainage system and shall not approve additional development that would convey
additional storm water to a facility that would experience an exceedance of capacity until the necessary additional capacity is provided.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
capacity within
the existing storm
water drainage
facilities
FMFCD, PW,
and DARM
X X
MMR CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
COMPLIANCE
VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable
Utilities and Service Systems – Adequacy of Water Supply Capacity:
USS-21: Prior to exceeding existing water supply capacity, the City shall evaluate the water supply system and shall not approve additional development that demands additional
water until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct an approximately 25,000 AF/year tertiary recycled water expansion to the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility in accordance with the 2013 Recycled Water Master Plan and the 2014 City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources
Management Plan update.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure USS -5 is also required prior to approximately the year 2025.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
existing water
supply capacity
DPU and
DARM
X
Utilities and Service Systems – Adequacy of Landfill Capacity:
USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations , and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.
Verification comments:
Prior to
exceeding
landfill capacity
DPU and
DARM
X
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST
For Environmental Assessment Application No. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
This monitoring checklist for the above noted environmental assessment is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as required under Assembly Bill 3180, and is intended to establish a project -specific reporting/monitoring program for Environmental Assessment No. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005. Verification of implementation of these mitigation measures, in addition to the applicable measures specified for this project per the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist prepared for this project pursuant to Master Environmental Impact Report No. SCH No. 2012111015 Fresno General Plan, will be required upon the application for subdivision of the project site, special permits, or grading on the project site. The captions below refer t o corresponding sections of the Initial Study checklist for this project, using the Appendix G format from the CEQA Guidelines.
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTED BY WHEN IMPLEMENTED VERIFIED BY Project shall implement and incorporate, as
appropriate all mitigation measures as
identified in the attached Master
Environmental Impact Report No. 10130--
2025 Fresno General Plan Mitigation
Monitoring Checklist dated August 19,
2011.
Applicant Processing and review of project
proposal prior to approval of
special permit.
City of Fresno
Development & Resource
Management Department;
City of Fresno,
Departments of Public
Works and Utilities, San
Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District.
III. Air Quality-1. The project applicant for
any future development projects seeking
discretionary approval from the City shall
submit an Indirect Source Review
Application to the SJVAPCD in compliance
with Rule 9510. The rule requires NOx
reductions of 20 percent and PM10
reductions of 45 percent compared to the
statewide average by using clean
construction equipment at the project site
Applicant Prior to issuance of building
permits
City of Fresno
Development & Resource
Management Department;
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
EXHIBIT C: PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
or paying mitigation fees through the
SJVAPCD to obtain off-site reductions.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials-1a.
Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the applicant shall ensure that a
Phase I ESA shall be conducted for
each individual property to ascertain the
presence or absence of Recognized
Environmental Conditions, Historical
Recognized Environmental Condi tions,
and Potential Environmental Concerns.
The findings and conclusions of the
Phase I ESA shall become the basis for
potential recommendations for follow -up
investigation, if found to be warranted. If
recommended, a Phase II ESA and/or
remediation shall
be completed if
required.
Applicant Prior to issuance of grading
permits or construction
City of Fresno
Development & Resource
Management Department.
IX, XIV and XVII Hydrology and Water
Quality/ Public Services/ Utility Systems
1- Comply with the conditions of letter dated
July 19, 2017 from the Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District as follows:
• Payment of flood control fees.
• Drainage Zone SS : the developer
may either make improvements to
existing or proposed pipeline system
to provide additional capacity OR
may use a permanent peak reducing
facility
Applicant Prior to issuance of building
permits
City of Fresno
Development & Resource
Management Department;
Fresno Metropolitan Flood
Control District
EXHIBIT C: PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
Drainage Zone TT: the developer
may either make improvements to
existing or proposed pipeline system
to provide additional capacity OR
may use a permanent peak reducing
facility
XVI Transportation/Traffic 1. The
developer must comply with the
requirements of the Traffic Impact Study,
from the Department of Public Utilities,
Traffic and Engineering division, dated July
19, 2017, and make the improvements as
follows:
California Ave at Walnut Ave:
• Install a traf fic signal with left -turn
phasing
• Restripe/widen the northbound and
southbound approaches from a
shared left -through-right lane to
one left -turn lane and a shared
through-right lane
Church Ave at Walnut Ave:
• Install a traffic signal with left-turn
phasing
• Restripe/widen the northbound,
southbound, westbound and
eastbound approaches from a
shared left -through-right lane to
one left -turn lane and a shared
through-right lane
Applicant Prior to issuance of building
permits for residential units
City of Fresno
Development & Resource
Management Department;
City of Fresno Department
of Public Utilities, Traffic
and Engineering
EXHIBIT C: PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
Church Ave at MLK Blvd:
• Restripe/widen the southbound,
westbound and eastbound
approaches from one left -turn
lane and a shared through right
lane to one left -turn lane, one
through lane and one right - turn
lane
Jensen Ave at Walnut Ave:
• Install a traffic signal with left -turn
phasing;
• Restripe/widen the northbound
and southbound approaches
from a shared left -through-right
lane to one left -turn lane and a
shared through-right lane
• Restripe/widen the east bound
and westbound approaches from
a shared left-through-right lane to
one left -turn lane, one through
lane and a shared through- right
lane
Jensen Ave at Elm Ave:
• Restripe/widen the southbound,
westbound and eastbound
approaches from one left -turn
lane, one through lane and a
shared through- right to one left -
turn lane, two through lanes and
EXHIBIT C: PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. A-17-007/ R-17-010/ TPM-17-06/ANX-17-005 August 2, 2017
one right-turn lane.
WSA-MLK 1 July 26, 2017
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
for
Martin Luther King Junior Activity Center
Proposed Project
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Martin Luther King Junior (MLK) Activity Center (Project) is to comply with the provisions of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), which requires lead agencies to show that there is sufficient water available to supply the proposed project, along with the existing and other planned development, for a period of 20 years. If it cannot be shown that a sufficient supply exists, it is required to present documentation that the lead agency has plans in place to adequately increase that supply.
The City of Fresno’s (City) general plan (Fresno General Plan) was adopted on December 18, 2014. As the proposed Project would amend the existing General Plan, and as it also exceeds 500 proposed dwelling units, the need for this WSA is triggered.
SB 610 requires documentation of adequate water supply for a 20-year period beyond the date of the assessment, and requires information to be presented in five-year increments. For purposes of this WSA, the projections extend until 2040.
2.0 EXISTING CITY WATER SYSTEM: DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES
The Project site is located within the Fresno General Plan, Growth Area 1, within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), with the existing land use types and acreages different than those proposed as part of the Project (see below). The public water system planned to serve this area is the City’s.
The Project site was included in the water demand projections prepared for the City of Fresno, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP ), adopted by the City Council in June 2016. Much of the information required by SB 610 can be obtain ed from the 2015 UWMP. The 2015 UWMP is the most up- to-date and accurate source of information regarding projected water demands, supplies, reliability, and contingency planning for the City. This document is the primary source of information for this WSA.
EXHIBIT D
WSA-MLK 2 July 26, 2017
The City maintains a water supply contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for Class 1 surface water allocations from Millerton Lake. The City’s USBR contract provides access to 60,000 acre -feet per year (afy) of surface water from Millerton Lake for municipal and industrial purposes and groundwater recharge, plus access to additional water supply resources above 60,000 a fy, including Unreleased Restoration Flows, Recirculated Water, Recovered Water, and Section 215 Water (non -storable flood release water). In addition, the City maintains a water supply and conveyance agreement with the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) that currently allocates 25.64 percent of FID ’s total Kings River entitlements to the City, with the potential to in crease the City’s allocation to 29 percent. In a normal year for precipitation and snowpack , FID’s entitlements from the Kings River range from 400,000 to 500,000 a fy. At 25.64 percent and 29.00 percent, the City’s surface water entitlements from th e Kings River total 128,200 afy and 145,000 afy, respectively, at 500,000 a fy for FID. During this current above-normal water year (2016-2017), the City’s Millerton Lake allocation will be 60,000 acre-feet (af) and Kings River entitlement will be 140,068 af. During the most recent severe drought, the City received a zero -percent allocation from Millerton Lake and 45,582 af from Kings River. The City owns, operates, and maintains a groundwater well field that consists of approximately 260 groundwater extr action wells. All of the wells have been permitted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The City’s existing well field has a capacity of 165,000 a fy, and that is the source of water the City will rely on during the next severe drought. During calendar year 2016, the City’s total water demands for the public water system total 112,398 af, which represents approximately 62.4 percent of the City’s current surface water entitlements (112,398/180,000).
Reference is made to the 2015 UWMP Chapter 4 (System Water Use) and Chapter Six (System Supplies) for further details regarding City’s water demands and supplies.
The 2015 UWMP addressed additional amendments of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as the Water Conservation Act of 200 9, known as SBX7-7. SBX7- 7 requires the state, and its municipal water purveyors, to have water use targets established for year s 2015 and 2020, and to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water usage by the year 2020. Per the 2015 UWMP Chap ter Five (SBX7-7 Baselines and Targets), the City’s 10 -year Baseline Period water use is 309 gallon -per- capita-per-day (gpcd); the year 2015 water use Interim Target was 278 gpcd, and the year 2020 Final Target is 247 gpcd. The year 2015 actual consumption was 19 0 gpcd (not a typical year due to the severe drought and implemented conservation measures), while the year 2016 actual consumption was approximately 224 gpcd, both meeting and exceeding the 2015 Interim Target and the 2020 Final Target.
Extracted from the 2015 UWMP are the following projected water demand and supply quantities for the City:
WSA-MLK 3 July 26, 2017
Water Demand: Water Supply:
Year 2020: 214,500 af 308,700 af
Year 2040: 262,500 af 366,200 af
The 2015 UWMP Chapter 7 (Water Supply Reliability Assessment), and spe cifically Tables 7-1 through 7 -9, provide a detailed information on the City’s water supply (from all sources) and the projected water demand in an Average Year, Single -Dry Year, and Multiple-Dry Years. The analysis, information, and data presented in Cha pter 7 of the 2015 UWMP show sufficient water supplies to meet City’s projected demands through year 2040.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed MLK Activity Center project is an approximately 116 -acre mixed -use development, including a new community college campus, along with residential, park, and commercial developments. It has approximate boundaries of Church Avenue on the north, Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard on the east, Jensen Avenue on the south, and Knight Avenue on the west. Figure I-1 is a map showing the general Project location and the proposed Project site plan.
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE
The approximately 116-acre Project is located outside the existing City limits, but within the Fresno General Plan, Growth Area 1, and within the SOI. The Fresno General Plan designates the land use as Medium Density Residential (19.67 acres), Urban Neighborhood (29.86 acres), Community Commercial (9.88 acres), Office (37.53 acres), and Community Park (18.64 acres). Figure I-2 shows the existing land use (per Fresno General Plan).
The proposed Project would consist of Medium Density Residential (54.48 acres), Public Facility – College (26.55 acres), Park and Recreation (9.63 acres), Community Commercial (2.40 acres), and Regional Commercial (22.52 acres). The site was previously used for agricultural purposes, which ceased operation several years ago.
The proposed Project would involve removal of the existing four (4) single -family dwellings, of which three (3) are vacant, and the construction of a residential development consisting of 5 to 12 dwelling units per acre on approximately 51.65 acres of the Project site. Figure I-3 shows the proposed land use (based on the p roposed Project Site Plan amendment to the general plan).
WSA-MLK 4 July 26, 2017
The 2015 UWMP documented the ultimate land use and acreages of the site as consistent with the Fresno General Plan. The land use and acreages for the Project site vary between the Fresno General Plan and the proposed Project as described above and summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Land Use
Land Use Existing (ac) Proposed (ac)
Medium Density Residential 19.67 54.48
Urban Neighborhood Residential 29.86 -
Community Commercial 9.88 2.40
Regional Commercial - 22.52
Office 37.53 -
Community Park 18.64 -
Park and Recreation - 9.63
Community College - 26.55
Total 115.58 115.58
5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT WATER DEMANDS
The projected water demands in the 2015 UWMP were estimated using Base Daily Per Capita Water Use and the City’s projected future service area population. As stated above, the Project site is located within the Fresno General Plan, Growth Area 1, with the existing land use types and acreages different than those proposed as part of the Project. Table 2, presented below, shows projected water demands for the Project site based on the existing land use (per Fresno General Plan and as shown in Table 1 above). Table 3 , presented below, shows projected water demands for the Project site based on the proposed Project land uses (and as shown in Table 1 above).
WSA-MLK 5 July 26, 2017
Table 2: Projected Water Demand - Existing Land Use
Land Use Existing
(ac)
Residential
Density
(unit/ac)
Unit Factor1 Annual
Demand
(afy)
Medium Density Residential 19.67 12 500 gpd/unit 132.18 Urban Neighborhood
Residential
29.86 21 280 gpd/unit 196.65
Community Commercial 9.88 1,100 gpd/ac 12.17
Office 37.53 1,500 gpd/ac 63.05
Community Park 18.64 2,600 gpd/ac 54.28
Total 115.58 458.33
1 Water use factor sources:
a. Educational: per City of Fresno water billing records (range: 1,100-2,000 gpd/ac) b. Residential: per City of Fresno 2017 approved criteria c. Park/Irrigation: per City of Fresno 2011 Metro Plan
d. Commercial: per City of Fresno WWMP factors and accounting for a 95% return to sewer ratio (range: 850-1,200 gpd/ac)
Table 3: Projected Water Demand - Proposed Land Use
Land Use Proposed
(ac)
Residential
Density
(unit/ac)
Unit Factor1 Annual
Demand
(afy)
Medium Density Residential 54.48 12 500 gpd/unit 366.11 Community Commercial 2.40 1,100 gpd/ac 2.96
Regional Commercial 22.52 1,100 gpd/ac 27.74
Park and Recreation 9.63 2,600 gpd/ac 28.04
Community College 26.55 1,500 gpd/ac 44.60
Total 115.58 469.45
1 Water use factor sources:
a. Educational: per City of Fresno water billing records (range: 1,100-2,000 gpd/ac) b. Residential: per City of Fresno 2017 approved criteria c. Park/Irrigation: per City of Fresno 2011 Metro Plan
d. Commercial: per City of Fresno WWMP factors and accounting for a 95% return to sewer ratio (range: 850-1,200 gpd/ac)
Table 4: Comparison of Projected Water Demands for Existing and Proposed Land Use Existing Land Use
(from Table 2)
Proposed Land Use
(from Table 3)
Difference
Projected Water Demand (afy) 458.33 469.45 11.12
WSA-MLK 6 July 26, 2017
6.0 SUMMARY
The difference in projected water demands between the existing and the proposed land uses for the Project ( 11.12 afy, shown in Table 4 above) represents an increase of approximately 0.005% for the year 2020 projected water demand of 214,500 af and an increase of approximately 0.004% for the year 2040 projected water demand of 262,500 af (per the 2015 UWMP and as shown above in Item 2.0). The projected increased water demand of approximately 11.12 afy is well below the projected water supply for both the year 2020 and the year 2040 (308,700 af and 366,200 af, respectively, per the 2015 UWMP and as shown above in Item 2.0).
The discussion and analysis presented in this WSA show that the City’s projected supplies for the years 2020 and 2040 per the referenced 2015 UWMP are sufficient to cover a relatively small increase (0.00 4% to 0.005% ) in the proposed Project water demands (based on the existing and proposed land use designations).
EXHIBIT E
Further technical data from the Traffic Impact Study is available upon request
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
DATE: July 13, 2017
TO: Sophia Pagoulatos
Development Department
FROM: Louise Gilio, Traffic Planning Supervisor
Department of Public Works, Traffic and Engineering Services Division SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 2017-06, Public Works Conditions of Approval Location: Jensen, Martin Luther King Jr., Church
Owner / Engineer: Blue Ocean Development America, LLC
Prior to resubmittal, change the parcel designation from: 1,2,3 and 4 to: A, B, C and D.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division, has completed its review and the following requirements are to be placed on this tentative map as a condition of approval by th e Public Works Department.
The following requirements are based on city records and the accuracy of the existing and proposed on-site and off-site conditions depicted on the tentative map. Requirements not addressed due to omission or misrepresentation of information, on which this review process is dependent, will be imposed whenever such conditions are disclosed.
Construct or install the required improvements, or contact Public Works to enter into a bonded secured agreement for these improvements. This must be executed prior to perfection of this parcel map.
Contact Jon Bartel at (559) 621-8684.
General Conditions
Submit the following plans, as applicable, in a single package, to the Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division for review and approval, prior to the final map: Street and Trail construction; Signing and Striping; Traffic Signal and Streetlight. All required signing and striping shall be installed and paid for by the developer / owner. The signing and striping plans shall comply with the current Caltrans standards and be submitted as a part of the street improvement plans.
Additional offsite improvements will be required at the time of future site plan review .
See attachment “A”.
Curb ramps with “Detectable Warning Devices” are required at all corners within the limits of this parcel map.
Underground all existing offsite overhead utilities with the limits of this map in accordance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-4114.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Street work on major streets shall be designed to include ITS in accordance with the Public Works ITS Specifications, where not existing.
EXHIBIT F
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
Street widening and transitions shall also include utility relocations and necessary dedications.
Street Dedications and / or Vacations
Identify pedestrian paths of travel along public sidewalks: Provide a minimum of 4’ clear to accommodate access along the entire street frontage of this map. Identify all street furniture, e.g.:
public utility poles and boxes, guy wires, signs, fire hydrants, bus stop benches, mail boxes, news stands, trash receptacles, tree wells, etc. within the public right of way or public easements.
The construction of any overhead, surface or sub -surface structures and appurtenances in the p ublic rights-of-way is prohibited unless an encroachment covenant is approved by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division. Contact Jason Camit at (559) 621-8681.
Encroachment agreements must be approved prior to final map.
Frontage Improvement Requirements
All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings of the City of Fresno, Public Works Department. Street construction plans are required and shall be approved by the City Engineer. The performance of any work within the public street rights -of- way (including pedestrian and utility easements) requires a STREET WORK PERMIT prior to commencement of work. Contact the City of Fresno Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division at (559) 621-8670 for detailed information.
Public Streets:
Jensen Avenue: 4-lane Arterial w/ Class I Trail
1. Dedication Requirements: (Parcel D)
a. Dedicate 50’-57’ of property, from center line, for public s treet purposes, within the limits of this subdivision, per Public Works Standard P-52 and P-69. Center line shall be established per Official Plan Line No. 28 and County Precise Plan No. 51. b. Dedicate a 26’ (minimum) easement for Landscape, Bike and Pedest rian purposes only. (Additional right of way may be required for grading and drainage purposes.) Above ground utilities are not allowed within this easement.
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: 3-Lane Collector
1. Dedication Requirements: (Parcel A, C, D and remainder) a. Dedicate 36’- 44’ of property, from section line, for public street purposes, within the limits of this subdivision, per Public Works Standard P-54 and P-69. b. Dedicate corner cuts for public street purposes at the intersection of MLK/ Church and MLK /Jensen, based on a 30’ radius.
2. Construction Requirements: (Parcel A)
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision.
b. Construct concrete curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The cur b shall be constructed to a 12’ pattern.
c. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-1 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-8. d. Construct a depressed curb per Public Works Standard P-28 and P-32. e. Construct an 80’ bus bay curb and gutter at the southwest corner of Martin Luther King Jr. and Church to Public Works Standard P-73, complete with a 12’ monolithic sidewalk.
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
Church Avenue: 3-lane Collector w/ Trail
1. Dedication Requirements: (Parcel A and B)
a. Dedicate 54’ of property, from section / 42’-44’ from center line, for public street purposes, within the limits of this subdivision, per Public Works Standard P-54 and P- 69. Center line shall be established per Official Plan Line No. 6 and County Precise Plan No. 42. b. Dedicate a 26’ (minimum) easement for Landscape, Bike and Pedestrian purposes only. (Additional right of way may be required for grading and drainage purposes.) Above ground utilities are not allowed within this easement.
2. Construction Requirements: (Parcel A)
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision.
b. Construct concrete curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The curb shall be constructed to a 12’ pattern. Planting of street trees shall conform to the minimum spacing guidelines as stated in the Standard Specification, Section 26-2.11(C). c. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-1 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-8. d. Construct a 12’ wide Bike and Pedestrian Class I Trail, complete with lighting, signing, striping and landscaping, per the 2035 Fresno General Plan, Public Works Standards P- 58, P-59, P-60, P-61 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Identify route on the map, complete with a cross section 7 days prior to the planning commission hearing. Where the trail is constructed within 5’ of the curb, construct a fence per Public Works Standards P-74 and P-75.
Knight and Grove Avenues: Local
1. Dedication Requirements: (Parcel C and D)
a. Dedicate a total of 60’ of property, (30’ from center line ), for public street purposes, within the limits of this subdivision, per Public Works Standar d P-56. On the west side of Knight and on the south side of Grove there are an Outlots “A” and “B”. 1’ strip offered for future street. Provide evidence that these have been dedicated to the City of Fresno or provide the dedication to complete the street r ight of way. The 1’ dedications are outside of the map boundary.
b. Dedicate a corner cut for public street purposes at the intersection of Knight and Jensen based on a 25’ radius.
Specific Mitigation Requirements : Comply with the mitigation measure requirements of the Traffic Engineering Manager for the Traffic Impact Study.
Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Fee: Contact the Public Works Department, Frank Saburit at (559)621-8797.
TSMI fee is credited against traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements, provided that the improvements are; constructed at ultimate locations, contained within the build out of the 2025 General Plan circulation element and are included in the latest Nexus Analysis for TSMI fee.
Project specific impacts that are not consistent with the 2025 General Plan , Public Works Standard Drawings or not incorporated in the TSMI fee infrastructure costs, are not reimbursable unless the City
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
Engineer and City Traffic Engineer include the new traffic signal a nd/or ITS improvements in the next update; upon the inclusion of the added infrastructure, the applicant shall agree to pay the newly calculated TSMI fee that includes the new infrastructure. Failure to pay this fee or construct improvements that are credited / reimbursable with this fee will result in a significant unmitigated impact as this fee is applied to all projects within the City Sphere of Influence. If the applicant is conditioned with improvements that are credited / reimbursable with this fee, t hey should work with the Department of Public Works and identify, with a Professional Engineer’s estimate, the costs associated with the improvements, prior to paying the TSMI fee at time of building permit.
1. The signal at the intersection of Church Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard shall be modified to the City of Fresno Standards, complete with left turn phasing, actuation and signal pre-emption. This work is eligible for reimbursement and/or credit against Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fees. The applicant shall design the traffic signal and obtain City approval of the plans prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit. If the intersection meets signal warrants at the time of occupancy of the first unit, then the full traffic signal shall be installed. If the intersection does not meet warrants, then the traffic signal installation shall be limited to the following equipment: poles, safety lights, oversize street name sign, conduits, detectors, service pedestal connected to a PG&E point of service, controller cabinet, ITS vault, ITS communication cabinet and all pull boxes, with the following equipment to be delivered to the City of Fresno’s Traffic Signal shop for future installation when warrants are met: 2070L controller, mast arms, heads, Opticom discriminator and receivers.
Fresno Major Street Impact (FMSI)Fees: This map is in the New Growth Area ; therefore pay all applicable growth area fees and City -wide regional street impact fees . Contact the P ublic Works Department, Frank Saburit at (559)621-8797.
FMSI Requirements: (Adjacent to Parcel A)
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: 3-Lane Collector
1. If not existing, d edicate and construct (1) north and southbound 12’ center section travel lane , (1) north and southbound 5’ shoulder and a 2-way left turn lane within the limits of Parcel A.
Stripe 200’ left turn pockets at all major intersections. If not existing, an additional 8’ dedication is required beyond the edge of pavement. Dedication shall be sufficient to accommodate additional paving and any other grading or transitions as necessary based on a 45 MPH design speed.
Church Avenue: 3-Lane Collector w/ Class I Trail
1. If not existing, dedicate and construct (1) east and westbound 12’ center section travel lane, (1) east and westbound 5’ shoulder and a 2-way left turn lane within the limits of Parcel A. Stripe 200’ left turn pockets at all major intersections. Dedication shall be sufficient to accommodate additional paving and any other grading or transitions as necessary based on a 45 MPH design speed.
Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF): Pay all applicable RTMF fees to the Joint Powers Agency located at 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93721; (559) 233 -4148 ext. 200; www.fresnocog.org. Provide proof of payment or exemption prior to granting final occupancy.
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
Exhibit “A”
Full off-site improvements are required for all parcels upon future development.
Underground all existing offsite overhead utilities with the limits of this map in accordance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-4114.
Jensen Avenue: 4-lane Arterial w/ Class I Trail
1. Construction Requirements:
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision.
b. Construct driveway approaches to Public Works Standards. c. Construct concrete curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The curb shall b e constructed to a 10’ pattern. Planting of street trees shall conform to the minimum spacing guidelines as stated in the Standard Specification, Section 26-2.11(C). d. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-1 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-7. e. Construct standard curb ramps per Public Works Standard P-28 at all intersections. f. Construct an 80’ bus bay curb and gutter at the northwest corner of Jensen and Martin Luther King to Public Works Standard P-73, complete with a 10’ monolithic sidewalk. g. Construct a 12’ wide Bike and Pedestrian Class I Trail, complete with lighting, signing, striping and landscaping, per the 2035 Fresno General Plan, Public Works Standards P- 58, P-59, P-60, P-61 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Identify route on the map, complete with a cross section 7 days prior to the planning commission hearing. Where the trail is constructed within 5’ of the curb, construct a fence per Public Works Standards P-74 and P-75.
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: 3-lane Collector
1. Construction Requirements:
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision.
b. Construct driveway approaches to Public Works Standards. c. Construct concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The curb shall be constructed to a 12’ pattern. Planting of street trees shall conform to the minimum spacing guidelines as stated in the Standard Specification, Section 26-2.11(C). d. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-1 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-8. e. Construct standard curb ramps per Public Works Standard P-28 at all intersections.
Church Avenue: 3-Lane Collector w/ Class I Trail
1. Construction Requirements:
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision.
b. Construct driveway approaches to Public Works Standards. c. Construct concrete curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The curb shall be constructed to a 12’ pattern. Planting of street trees shall conform to the minimum spacing guidelines as stated in the Standard Specification, Section 26-2.11(C). d. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-1 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-8. e. Construct standard curb ramps per Public Works Standard P-28 at all intersections. f. Construct a 12’ wide Bike and Pedestrian Class I Trail, complete with lighting, signing, striping and landscaping, per the 2035 Fresno General Plan, Public Works Standards P- 58, P-59, P-60, P-61 and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Identify route on the map, complete with a cross section 7 days prior to the planning commission hearing. Where the trail is constructed within 5’ of the curb, construct a fence per Public Works Standards P-74 and P-75.
Knight and Grove Avenues: Local
1. Construction Requirements:
a. Construct 20’ of permanent paving (measured from face of curb) within the limits of this subdivision. Provide missing pavement, as required with the street plan. b. Construct driveway approaches to Public Works Standards. c. Construct concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter and to Public Works Standard P-5. The curb shall be constructed to a 10 or 12’ residential pattern. Match existing. Planting of street trees shall conform to the minimum spacing guidelines as stated in the Standard Specification, Section 26-2.11(C).
d. Construct an underground street lighting system to Public Works Standard E-2 within the limits of this subdivision. Spacing and design shall conform to Public Works Standard E-9. - OR- Show the existing street light locations on th e plans, -AND- that they are constructed per current City of Fresno Public Works Standards.
e. Construct a standard curb ramp per Public Works Standard P-28.
Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Fee: This project shall pay all applicable TSMI Fees, at the time of Building Permits based on the trip generation rates as set forth in the latest edition of the ITE Generation Manual. Contact the Public Works Department, Frank Saburit at (559)621-8797.
1. Jensen Avenue: Arterial: Modify t he existing signal pole with a 150 -watt safety light and an oversize street sign to current Public Works Standards at the northwest corner of Jensen Avenue and Martin Luther King Rr. Boulevard . Replace the high pressure sodium light fixture with a 150-watt equivalent LED safety light.
Fresno Major Street Impact (FMSI)Fees: This map is in the New Growth Area ; therefore pay all applicable growth area fees and City -wide regional street impact feesContact the Public Works Department, Frank Saburit at (559)621-8797.
FMSI Requirements:
Fresno Major Street Impact (FMSI)Fees: This map is in the New Growth Area ; therefore pay all applicable growth area fees and City -wide regional street impact fees . Contact the Public Works Department, Frank Saburit at (559)621-8797.
T:\Traffic Planning\_CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL\PARCEL MAPS\2017\PM 2017-06 JENSEN CHURCH MLK\PM 2017-06 JENSEN & MLK.doc
FMSI Requirements:
Jensen Avenue: 4-lane Arterial w/ Class I Trail
1. Where not existing, d edicate and construct ( 2) westbound 12’ travel lanes, (2) eastbound 12’ travel lanes, (1) eastbound 5’ shoulder, ( 1) westbound 12’ travel lane, (1) westbound 5’ shoulder and a *16’ / 26’ raised concrete median island within the limits of Parcel D.
Construct a raised concrete median with 250’ left turn pockets at all major intersections. Details of said street shall be depicted on the approved tentative tract map. If not existing, an additional 8’ dedication is required beyond the edge of pavement. Dedication shall be sufficient to accommodate arterial standard and any other grading or transitions as necessary based on a 55 MPH design speed. *To be determined by the Traffic Impact Study.
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: 3-Lane Collector
1. Where not existing, dedicate and construct (1) north and southbound 12’ center section travel lane, (1) north and southbound 5’ shoulder and a 2-way left turn lane within the limits of B, C, D and the Remainder. Stripe 200’ left turn pockets at all major intersections. If not existing, an additional 8’ dedication is required beyond the edge of pavement. Dedication shall be sufficient to accommodate additional paving and any other grading or transitions as necessary based on a 45 MPH design speed.
Church Avenue: Collector
1. Where not existing, d edicate and construct (1) east and westbound 12’ center section travel lane, (1) east and westbound 5’ shoulder and a 2-way left turn lane within the limits of Parcel B.
Stripe 200’ left turn pockets at all major intersections. Dedication shall be sufficient to accommodate additional paving and any other grading or transitions as necessary based on a 45 MPH design speed.
MEMORANDUM
SOPHIA PAGOULATOS, Long Range/Planning
Water and Sewer Conditions of Approval
DARM Applications A-17-007, R-17-010, TMP-2017-06, and ANX-17-005 July 12, 2017
1. The proposed project is loca ted within City Growth Area 1.
2. Replace the 10-inch water main in Sout h Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, between East Jensen Avenue and East Church Avenue with a 12-inch water main (including fire hydrants).
3. Existing water services from the 10-i nch water main shall be transferred to the proposed 12-inch water main.
4. Install an 8-inch water main (including City fire hydrants) in East Grove Avenue between South Walnut Avenue and South Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
5. Install an 8-inch water main (including City fire hydrants) in South Fairview Avenue between South Jensen Avenue and East Grove Avenue.
6. Installation of water service(s) & meter box(es) shall be required.
7. On-site water facilities shall be private.
8. Destruct any existing on-site well in compliance with the State of California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90 or current revisions issued by California Department of Water Resources and City of Fresno standards.
The water supply requirements for this project are as follows:
1. The existing property is currently serv ed with a 1-inch and 1.5-inch water meters.
2. The project applicant shall be required to pay Water Capacity Fee charges for the installation of new water services and meters to serve the uses on the project.
3. The Water Capacity Fee charge assess ed to the applicant shall be based on the number and size of service connections and water meters required to serve the project.
4. The Water Capacity Fee charges by meter size are defined in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
5. The City reserves the right to require an app licant to increase or decrease the size of a water meter for a project or a property to ensure that the meter is properly sized to accommodate fire protection requirements, and to allow for accurate volumetric flow measurements at low- and high-flow conditions.
6. The applicant shall be issued a Water Capac ity Fee credit for the existing 1-inch and
1.5 inch meters that are currently located at the project site. The Water Capacity Fee
MEMORANDUM
SOPHIA PAGOULATOS, Long Range/Planning
Water and Sewer Conditions of Approval
DARM Applications A-17-007, R-17-010, TMP-2017-06, and ANX-17-005 July 12, 2017
credit will be based the meter size as published in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.
7. The project applicant shall be required to pay all other water-related fees and charges in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code.
Sewer Requirements
The nearest sanitary sewer facilities available to serve the proposed project are two (2) 30- inch sewer trunks located in East Church Avenue, a 48-inch sewer trunk located in East Jensen Avenue, an 8-inch sewer main in Martin Luther King Boulevard north of East Grove Avenue, and a 10-inch sewer main in Martin Luther King Boulevard south of East Grove Avenue. As currently master planned for sewer services:
1. All sewer connections located north of Gr ove Avenue shall be directed to one of the 30-inch trunk lines in Church Avenue.
2. All sewer connections located south of Grove Avenue shall be directed to the Jensen Avenue trunk line.
Sanitary sewer facilities are available to provide service to the site subject to the following requirements:
1. Abandon 14-inch fiberglass reinforce conc rete non-active sewer pipe. Due to the shallowness of the main, the pipe will have to be removed. The existing main shall be capped at the intersection of Grove Avenue and Knight Avenue on the west end, and Grove Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the east end.
2. Vacate the 20-foot utilit y easement at the Grove Avenue alignment between Knight Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Prior to vacating the easement, applicant shall contact the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District regarding the 48- inch concrete storm drain co-located in the easement with the 14-inch fiberglass reinforced concreted pipe.
3. Street easements and/or deeds shall be re corded prior to approval of improvement plans.
4. All underground util ities shall be installed prior to permanent street paving.
5. A cross access agreement is required for se wer service(s) crossing parcel boundaries.
6. A preliminary sewer design layout sha ll be prepared by the applicant’s engineer, and submitted to the Department of Public Utilities for review and conceptual-level approvals prior to submittal or acceptance of the applicant’s final map and engineered
MEMORANDUM
SOPHIA PAGOULATOS, Long Range/Planning
Water and Sewer Conditions of Approval
DARM Applications A-17-007, R-17-010, TMP-2017-06, and ANX-17-005 July 12, 2017
plan & profile improvement drawing for City review.
7. Engineered improvement pl ans prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shall be submitted for Department of Public Utilities review and approvals for proposed additions to the City public sewer system.
8. All public sanitary sewer facilities s hall be constructed in accordance with City standards, specifications, and policies.
9. Sanitary sewer connection to the exis ting Rehabbed 48-inch sewer trunk located in East Jensen Avenue shall be required to be constructed by machine coring and epoxy coating the area of the 48-inch sewer trunk.
10. The Project Developer shall contact Wastewater Management Division/Environmental Services at (559) 621-5100 prior to pulling building permits regarding conditions of service for special users.
Sanitary Sewer Fees
The following Sewer Connection Charges are due and shall be paid for the Project:
1. Sewer Lateral Charge.
2. Sewer Oversize Service Area: # 30
3. Sewer Facility Char ge (Non-Residential)
County of Fresno
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
David Pomaville, Director
Dr. Ken Bird, Health Officer
Promotion, preservation and protection of the community’s health 1221 Fulton Mall /P. O. Box 11867, Fresno, CA 93775
(559) 600-3271 FAX (559) 600・ -7629
The County of Fresno is an Equal Opportunity Employer
www.co.fresno.ca.us www.fcdph.org・
June 27, 2017
LU0019034
Sophia Pagoulatos 2602
Development & Resource Management
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Dear Ms. Pagulatos:
PROJECT NUMBER: A-17-007, R-17-010, TPM 2017-06, ANX-17-005
Plan Amendment Application No. A-17-007, Rezone Application No. R-17-010, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TMP-2017-06 and Annexation Application No. ANX-17-005 were filed by Scott Mommar, on behalf of Sylvesta Hall of Blue Ocean Development America, LLC, and pertain to 115.95 acres of property located on northwest corner of East Jensen and South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Plan Amendment Application No. A-17-007 requests to amendment the Fresno General Plan and Edison Community Plan from the following land use designations: Medium Density Residential for 19.25 acres, Urban Neighborhood for 29.44 acres, Community Commercial for 10.11 acres, Office for 37.69 acres and Community Park for 19.09 acres to Medium Density Residential for 54.48 acres, Community Commercial for 2.4 acres, Regional Commercial for 22.52 acres, Park for 9.63 acres and the Public Facility – College designation for 26.55 acres. Rezone Application No. R-17-010 proposes to amend the Official Zone Map from the Fresno County AL-20 (Limited Agricultural) to the City of Fresno zone districts to be designated as follows: RS-5 (Residential Single-Family) for 54.48 acres, CC (Community Commercial) for 2.4 acres, CR (Commercial-Regional) for 22.52 acres, PR (Parks and Recreation) for
9.63 acres and PI (Public and Institutional) for 26.55 acres. Tentative Parcel Map Application No.
TPM-2017-06 proposes the creation of four parcels on 115.949 acres. The prezone of the property is for purposes of facilitating annexation pursuant to Annexation Application No. ANX-17-005, which also proposes detachment of the property from the Kings River Conservation District and the Fresno County Fire Protection District and annexation to the City of Fresno. These actions are under the jurisdiction of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
APN: 479-050-02, -03 & 479-060-02, -03, -08, -09, -10, -11 ZONING: From AL-20 to RS-5/CC/CR/PR/PI ADDRESS: Northwest corner of East Jensen and South Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
As a measure to protect ground water, all water wells and/or s eptic systems that exist or have been abandoned within the project area should be properly destroyed by an appropriately licensed contractor.
Prior to destruction of agricultural wells, a sample of the upp er most fluid in the water well column should be sampled for lubricating oil. The presenc e of oil staining around the water well may indicate the use of lubricating oil to maintain the well pump. Should lubricating oil be found in the well, the oil should be removed from the well prior to Sophia Pagoulatos
June 27, 2017
A-17-007, R-17-010, TPM 2017-06, ANX-17-005
placement of fill material for destruction. The "oily water" r emoved from the well must be handled in accordance with federal, state and local government requirements.
Should any underground storage tank(s) be found during the pro ject, the applicant shall apply for and secure an Underground Storage Tank Removal Permit from the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Contact the Certified Unified Program Agency at (559) 600-3271 for more information.
The following comments pertain to the demolition of existing structures:
Any demolition at the project site has the potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels. Consideration should be given to your City’s municipal code.
Should the structures have an active rodent or insect infestat ion, the infestation should be abated prior to demolition of the structures in order to prevent the spread of vectors to adjacent properties.
In the process of demolishing the existing structures, the con tractor may encounter asbestos containing construction materials and materials coated with lead based paints.
If asbestos containing materials are encountered, contact the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District at (559) 230-6000 for more information.
If the structures were constructed prior to 1979 or if lead-ba sed paint is suspected to have been used in these structures, then prior to demolition work the contractor should contact the following agencies for current regulations and requirements:
California Department of Public Health, Childhood Lead Poisoni ng Prevention Branch, at (510) 620-5600.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, at (4 15) 947-8000.
State of California, Industrial Relations Department, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Consultation Service (CAL-OSHA) at (559) 454-5302.
Any construction materials deemed hazardous as identified in t he demolition process must be characterized and disposed of in accordance with current federal, state, and local requirements.
REVIEWED BY:
Kevin Tsuda, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist II ( 559) 600-3271
kt
cc: Glenn Allen- Environmental Health Division (CT. 09.01) Scott Mommer- Applicant ([email protected])
Sylvesta Hall- Developer ( [email protected])
PM2017-06 Conditions for Maintenance.docx
DATE: July 17, 2017
TO: Will Tackett, Supervising Planner/Current Planning Development and Resource Management Department
FROM: Ann Lillie, Senior Engineering Technician
Public Works Department, Traffic and Engineering Services Division
SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2017-06 REGARDING MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
LOCATION: Jensen, Martin Luther King Jr., Church
Owner / Engineer:
Blue Ocean Development America, LLC
*NOTE – The understanding is that there are no off-site public improvements required with this parcel map. However, the landowner/developer shall be responsible to provide funding for the maintenance services of all required public improvements by a method approved by the Public Works Department at such time that development occurs with each subdivided parcel of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2017-06.
1. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The long term maintenance and operating costs, including repair and replacement, of certain required public improvements (“Services”) associated with all ne w Single -Family, Commercial, Industrial and Multi -family developments are the ultimate responsibilit y of the landowner/developer . The landowner/developer shall provide these Services either by a mechanism approved by the Public Works Department or by annexing to the City of Fresno’s Community Facilities District.
The following public improvements (Existing and Proposed) are eligible for Services by CFD:
All landscaped areas, trees and irrigation systems, as approved by the Public Works Department, within the street rights-of-way and landscape easements; including without limitation, the median island (1/2, if fronting only one side of median), parkways, buffers, street entry medians and sides (10’ minimum landscaped areas allowed). (Major Streets and Local Streets)
All landscaping, trees, irrigation systems, hardscaping and amenities within Outlots , open spaces and trails.
Concrete curb and gutters, valley gutters, sidewalks, curb ramps, traffic calming structures, median island concrete maintenance band and cap (1/2, if fronting only one side of median) , and street lights in all Major Streets.
Concrete curb and gutters, valley gutters, sidewalks, curb ramps, traffic calming structures , and street entry and interior median island curbing and hardscape, street paving, street name signage and street lights in all Local Streets.
For questions regarding these conditions please contact me at (559) 621-8690 or [email protected]