Exhibit M-2
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOP
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
7/25/22 (P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\NOP\NOP_TM6360.docx) 1 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Date:
To:
Subject:
August 8, 2022
Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project in Fresno, CA
L
ead Agency: City of Fresno
Contact: Chris Lang
Planner III
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8023
[email protected]
Notice is Hereby Given: The City of Fresno (City) is the Lead Agency on the below- described Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 (proposed project) and has prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The NOP is intended to solicit the views of the public, interested parties, and/or agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is relevant to you or your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Specifically, the City is requesting that commenters identify envir onmental topics (and/or special studies) that they believe need to be explored in the forthcoming EIR, and to identify other relevant environmental issues related to the scope and content of the forthcoming EIR.
Project Title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Project Location: The proposed project is located on approximately 31.29 acres on the northeast corner of the intersection between North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue , in Fresno, California.
Site Latitude: 36.766109 °, Site Longitude: –1 19.671989°. Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, SE quarter of Section 27, Township 13 South, Range 21 East (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 574-140-04 and 574- 140-05). The attached Figure 1 shows the regional and local context of the project location.
Project Description: The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6 360 would construct 328 single- family residences, private streets, communal park space, a 14,168 square-foot pool and recreation area, and supporting landscaping, pedestrian, parking, and public utility uses. The project site plan in shown in Figure 2, attached. Associated entitlements to facilitate development of the proposed project include a Planned Development Permit to allow for 328 single-family residences, a General Plan Amendment (Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential), and a Rezone from R S-3 to RS -5 ( Single Family Residential, Low Density to Single Family Residential, Medium Density ). To facilitate the future development of the subject property, t he proposed project will also require dedications and/or acquisitions for public street rights -of-way and utility easements, as well as the const ruction of public 7/25/22 (P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\NOP\NOP_TM6360.docx) 2 facilities and in frastructure in a ccordance with the standards, specifications, and policies of t he City of Fresno.
Areas of Potential Environmental Effects: Potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project include, b ut may not be limited to , the following: Air Quality , Greenhouse Gas E missions, and Transportation.
Document Availability and Public Review Timeline: Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to the NOP must be sent no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. The review period for the NOP will be from August 8, 2022, to September 6, 2022. Copies of the NOP can be reviewed at the City of Fresno, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, CA 93721. Electronic copies can also be accessed on the City’s website at: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/planning-development/plans- projects-under-review/
Public Scoping Meeting : The CEQA process encourages comments and questions from the public throughout the planning process. Pursuant to Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Public Scoping Meeting will be held to solicit public comments on the scope and content of the EIR . A public scoping meeting for this project will be conducted virtually at 6:00 PM on Wednesday, August 17, 2022 . The webinar information is provided below:
Via Zoom online meeting at: https://bit.ly/TractMap6360 Or by Phone at: +1 669 444 9171 US
Webinar ID: 301 002 7686
Submitting Comments: Comments and suggestions as to the appropriate scope of analysis of the EIR are invited from all interested parties. Written comments or questions concerning the EIR for the proposed project should be directed to the City’s Project Planner, Chris Lang, at the following address by 5:00 PM on September 6, 2022. Please include the commenter’s full name, address, phone number and/or email so that we may contact you for clarification, if necessary. Please submit comments to:
Ch
ris Lang
Planner III
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8023
[email protected]
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
E FLORADORA AVE
N ARMSTRONG AVE
CITY OF
FRESNO
UNINCORPORATED
FRESNO COUNTY
CITY OF
FRESNO
E CLINTON AVE
N TEMPERANCE AVE
SOURCE: Esri Streetmap (2021)
I:\HAA2103-TM 6360\GIS\MXD\Regional_Local_Context_NOP.mxd (6/16/2022) FIGURE 1
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Notice of Preparation
Regional and Local Context
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Project
Location
ÃÃ43
ÃÃ168
ÃÃ180
ÃÃ41
ÃÃ99
Project Vicinity
LEGENDLEGEND
Project Location
Parcel Boundary
Fresno City Limit
0 500 1000
FEET
16008 0
FEET
SOURCE: Harbour & Associates, 5/19/2022
I:\HAA1903-TM 6360\G\NOP Figure\Fig 2_Site Plan.ai (7/20/2022) FIGURE 2
VesƟng TentaƟve Tract Map No. 6360
NoƟce of PreparaƟon
Site Plan
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
August 24, 2022
Chris Lang
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: 2022080152, Tract Map No. 6360 Project, Fresno County
Dear Mr. Lang:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
AB 52
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf
SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.
Some of SB 18’s provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Admin\Appendices\A_NOP_Public_Comments\Contents\Fresno_County-OAR Comment Response Letter NOP-TTM 6360 City of Fresno (002).docx
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING
STEVEN E. WHITE, DIRECTOR
August 26, 2022
Chris Lang, Planner III
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8023
[email protected]
SUBJECT: NOP of EIR Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Dear Mr. Lang:
The County of Fresno appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project being reviewed by the City of Fresno. The documents received for this review were circulated to our various Fresno County Public Works and Planning divisions. Based on the County's initial review, we offer the following comments from our various divisions:
The Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division has completed a review of the Request for Comment for the proposed NOP EIR and offers the following comments for consideration:
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• If future applicants propose to use and/or store hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes, they shall meet the requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. Any business that handles a hazardous material or hazardous waste may be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25507 (http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/). Contact the Fresno County Hazmat Compliance Program at (559) 600-3271 for more information.
• If any underground petroleum storage tank(s) are discovered during construction activities, the applicant/property owner shall apply for and secure an Underground Storage Tank Removal Permit from the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Contact the Fresno County Hazmat Compliance Program at (559) 600-3271 for more information.
P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Admin\Appendices\A_NOP_Public_Comments\Contents\Fresno_County-OAR Comment Response Letter NOP-TTM 6360 City of Fresno (002).docx
Hydrology and Water Quality
• As a measure to protect groundwater, all water wells (not intended for use) and septic systems within the property shall be properly destroyed by an appropriately licensed contractor. Contact the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Water Surveillance Program at (559) 600-3357 for more information.
Noise
• Appropriate measures should be incorporated into the construction phase of future projects to minimize potentially significant short-term localized noise impacts to noise sensitive receivers caused by the operation of construction equipment. Construction specifications for projects should require that all construction equipment is maintained according to the manufacturers’ specifications, and that noise generating construction equipment is equipped with mufflers. In addition, consideration should be given to limiting noise-generating construction activities to daytime hours.
• Future projects have the potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels. Consideration should be given to conformance with the applicable standards of the Noise Element of the City of Fresno General Plan. Consideration should be given to noise sensitive receivers within the City’s Zoning Map.
Transportation Planning reviewed LSA’s prepared traffic study for the Tract Map 6360 project in the City of Fresno and asks to please include the following intersections in the study:
• Floradora & Armstrong
• Floradora & Fowler
Growth in the area is moving considerably fast and we would like to capture all traffic, especially on these smaller streets. Other than that, Transportation Planning finds the scope of work sufficient.
If you have any questions regarding the information described in this letter, please contact me at [email protected] or (559) 600-4305.
Sincerely,
David Randall, Senior Planner
Development Services and Capital Projects Division, Current Planning
Printed on Recycled Paper
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 2, 2022
Mr. Chris Lang
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno Street, CA 93721
[email protected]
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6360 PROJECT IN FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, DATED AUGUST 8, 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022080152) Dear Mr. Lang:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project in Fresno, California (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.
DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:
1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a qualified local agency that meets the requirements of Assembly Bill 304 (AB304) should provide regulatory concurrence that the site is safe for construction and the proposed use.
2. The EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the Mr. Chris Lang
September 2, 2022
contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.
3. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.
This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR.
4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.
5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.
6. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).
Mr. Chris Lang
September 2, 2022
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
September 2, 2022
Chris Lang
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA, 93721
Project: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
District CEQA Reference No: 20221116
Dear Mr. Lang:
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the City of Fresno (City) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360. Per the NOP, the project consists of 328 single family residences, private streets, communal park space, a 14,168 square-foot pool and recreation area, and supporting landscaping, pedestrian, parking, and public utility uses (Project).
The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:
Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.
The District’s initial review of the Project concludes that emissions resulting from construction and/or operation of the Project may exceed any of the following significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.
The District recommends that a more detailed preliminary review of the Project be conducted for the Project’s construction and operational emissions.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment.
Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.
Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf.
Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.
Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.
To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for the Project. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.
Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):
A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.
The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.
To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:
Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.
A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.
A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.
The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.
The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
HARP2 files
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.
For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.
An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.
Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Criteria pollutant emissions may result in emissions exceeding the District’s significance thresholds, potentially resulting in a significant impact on air quality.
When a project is expected to have a significant impact, the District recommends the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) also include a discussion on the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for this Project.
A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for- pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.
The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.
Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.
In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.
Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.
On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.
District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
(Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receives a project- level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 50 dwelling units of residential.
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510. One AIA application should be submitted for the entire Project. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the City’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the City’s analysis.
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.
The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.
District staff is available to provide assistance and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.
The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.
In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.
Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.
The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx
Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm
District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters
The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.
Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.
Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 9 District Reference No: 20221116
September 2, 2022
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.
Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
September 6, 2022
Chris Lang, Planner III
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, California 93721
[email protected]
(559) 621-8023
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 6360 Project (Project) SCH No.: 2022080152
Dear Mr. Lang:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP from the City of Fresno for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish and G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817 Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.
Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Objective: The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 6360 would construct 328 single-family residences, private streets, communal park space, a 14,168 square-foot pool and recreation area, and supporting landscaping, pedestrian, parking, and public utility uses. Associated entitlements to facilitate development of the proposed Project include a Planned Development Permit to allow for 328 single-family residences, a General Plan Amendment (Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential), and a Rezone from RS-3 to RS-5 (Single Family Residential, Low Density to Single Family Residential, Medium Density). To facilitate the future development of the subject property, the proposed Project will also require dedications and/or acquisitions for public street rights-of-way and utility easements, as well as the construction of public facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the standards, specifications, and policies of the City of Fresno.
Location: The proposed project is located on approximately 31.29 acres on the northeast corner of the intersection between North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue, in Fresno, California. Site Latitude: 36.766109°, Site Longitude: – 119.671989°. Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, SE quarter of Section 27, Township 13 South, Range 21 East (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 574-140-04 and 574- 140-05).
Timeframe: None specified.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817 Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The NOP indicates that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will consider potential environmental effects of the proposed Project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effect and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary to make a determination on the level of significance. The EIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed project. When an EIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation.
Special-status species have been documented in the Project area per the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), these include, but are not limited to, the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
BUOW have been observed approximately 1.03-miles east of the Project site along with other observations in the vicinity of the Project site (CNDDB 2022). BUOW inhabit open grassland or adjacent canal banks, right-of-ways, vacant lots, etc., containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover.
Review of Google aerial imagery and Google street view (2021) indicates that there is a canal adjacent to the southern side of the Project site. Disturbed grassland is present to the west/northwest and north of the proposed Project.
The large, planned development could potentially have significant direct impacts associated with construction activities which may include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, nest abandonment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.
BUOW rely on burrow habitat year-round for their survival and reproduction. Habitat loss and degradation are considered the greatest threats to BUOW in California’s Central Valley (Gervais et al. 2008). The Project site contains agricultural crops and is bordered by agriculture to the west. A disturbed grassland area is present directly across the canal to the south with more agriculture south of there. Therefore, subsequent ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project have the potential to significantly impact local BUOW populations. In addition, and as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), excluding and/or evicting BUOW from their burrows is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document, to determine if the Project area or its vicinity contains suitable habitat for BUOW, along with assessing presence/absence of BUOW by having a qualified biologist conduct surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s “Burrowing Owl Survey DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817 Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” (CBOC 1993) and CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012). Specifically, the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) and CDFW’s Staff Report suggest three or more surveillance surveys conducted during daylight with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season (April 15 to July 15), when BUOW are most detectable.
CDFW recommends no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, CDFW’s Staff Report recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either:
1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
If BUOW are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to the Staff Report (CDFG 2012), exclusion is not a take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. However, if necessary, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1) as mitigation for the potentially significant impact of evicting BUOW. BUOW may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, CDFW recommends ongoing surveillance, at a rate that is sufficient to detect BUOW if they return.
II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Nesting Birds: The Project vicinity is adjacent to habitat that provides nesting habitat for birds. CDFW encourages that Project implementation occur during the bird non- nesting season. However, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February through mid-September), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817 Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes sections referenced above.
To evaluate Project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct a habitat assessment for nesting birds as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document with the findings reported therein. CDFW also recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct pre-activity surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by the Project. Prior to initiation of Project activities, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begins, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.
If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival.
Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting- Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817 Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.
Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.
More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, or by electronic mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: Patricia Cole ([email protected])
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817
Chris Lang
City of Fresno
September 6, 2022
LITERATURE CITED
CDFW. 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed August 15, 2022.
BUOW Literature Citations
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. April 1993.
CDFG. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Game.
Gervais, J.A., D.D. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 76A9DF79-EC01-45E1-91D7-8F5E86AD9817
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Internal
September 6, 2022
Chris Lang
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St, Rm 3043
Fresno, CA 93721
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Chris Lang,
Thank you for submitting the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.
This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Internal
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.
2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.
Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.
5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Internal
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)
Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.
8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.
9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.
Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Internal
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Internal
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.
Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.
5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.
Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Internal
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
APPENDIX B
INITIAL STUDY
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form for:
EA No. T-6360/P22-00387/P22-00388
1. Project title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Environmental Assessment Application No. T-6360/P22-00387/P22-00388
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
3. Contact person and phone number:
Chris Lang, Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Dept.
(559) 621-8023
4. Project location:
Northeast corner of North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue (APN: 574-140-04 and 574-140-05)
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Wilson Premier Homes, Inc.
7550 North Palm Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, CA, 93711
6. General & Community plan land use designation:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Residential Single-Family District (RS-3)
8. Description of project:
The following describes the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 (proposed project).
Existing Conditions
The project site is approximately 31.29 acres in size, is currently being used to grow agricultural crops, and is located in the City of Fresno, on the northeast corner of the intersection between North Armstrong Avenue and the future extension of East McKinley Avenue. Figure 1 shows the site’s regional and local context. The project site 2 is bounded by North Armstrong Avenue to the west, by Mill No. 36 Canal and TM 6201 to the south, by rural residential uses to the east, and by residential development to the north. Figure 2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses. The project site is undeveloped and does not have any existing structures. The project site is currently being used to grow agricultural crops.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project would consist of the development of approximately 326 residential lots ranging in sizes between approx imately 1,979 and 8,474 square feet, with the average lot size being approx. 2,365 square feet. The proposed lots would be developed into single-family residences over time. Thirty-nine outlot spaces would also be included in the project. Although the site plan does not provide details on what would be constructed in these spaces, potential uses for the outlots would include private landscaping, private pool, private road, private park, private parking, public pedestrian, and public utility uses.
Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan for the project. The proposed project would include approximately 53,016 square feet of open space, including an approx imately 11,777 square-foot park, a 15,207 square-foot pool and recreation area, and a 26,032 square- foot area across East McKinley Avenue parallel to the project site that would be deeded to the City of Fresno for future trail and open space uses. The project site would introduce approximately 7.09 acres of impervious surfaces to the site. The proposed project would remove five existing power poles along North Armstrong Avenue, two existing power poles located along the project site’s northern boundary, and two existing power poles located on the northeast corner of the project site.
Access, Circulation and Parking
The proposed project would include approximately 157,367 square feet of parking space, which includes private parking stalls and parking garages attached to proposed residential units. Two parking spaces would be provided for each proposed residential unit, approximately 652 parking spaces in total. Vehicle access to the project site would be provided by two gated 55-foot-wide ingress and egress driveways located on North Armstrong Avenue and on East McKinley Avenue. The proposed project would construct an approximately 861-foot-long eastern extension of McKinley Avenue. This extension of McKinley Avenue would be two -lanes and approximately 64 feet wide within an approximately 88-foot right-of-way, with curbs on both sides of the proposed extension, as well as a 6-foot pedestrian concrete sidewalk along the project frontage with McKinley Avenue. A 25-foot bike and pedestrian easement would also be included across the proposed roadway extension, parallel with the project site. The proposed project would also include the expansion of the North Armstrong Avenue right-of-way and the construction of new curbs on both sides of the portion of North Armstrong Avenue facing the project. The project would also construct a 6 -foot pedestrian concrete sidewalk on the project frontage with North Armstrong Avenue. Vehicle circulation within the project site would be provided by a network of two-way, 41.2-foot- wide roadways. Pedestrian circulation would occur through interna l pedestrian sidewalks with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramps. 3 Landscaping
The proposed project would include approximately 1.04 acres of landscaping along the perimeter and within the project site.
Lighting
The proposed project would introduce approximately 9 new exterior lights to the project site along the McKinley and Armstrong Avenues’ right -of-way (ROW) on the project perimeter. Additionally, the project would include approximately 49 interior lights associated with private street lighting and private lighting systems.
Utilities and Infrastructure
• Water and Wastewater. Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Fresno through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Water and Wastewater Management Divisions. The proposed project would connect to an existing water service pipeline located along North Armstrong Avenue, and proposed wastewater service pipelines located along North Armstrong Avenue and the future extension of East McKinley Avenue.
• Stormwater. The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) would provide flood control and urban storm water services to the project site.
Stormwater from the project site would be directed through internal drainage infrastructure (e.g., manholes, drainage bas ins, and drainage lines) towards proposed drainage infrastructure located along North Armstrong Avenue and along the future extension of East McKinley Avenue. Stormwater from the project site would then be redirected towards ponding Basin BS, l ocated approximately 0.26-mile southwest of the project site across Mill No. 36 Canal.
• Solid Waste. Solid waste collection for the project site would be provided by the City of Fresno through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Solid Waste and Recycling Division.
• Electricity and Telecommunication. Electricity for the proposed project would be supplied by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) through connections to existing service lines. The proposed project would be all-electric; therefore, the proposed project would not include any new natural gas services.
Telecommunication services to the project site would be provided by Comcast and AT&T.
Energy Reduction Strategies
The proposed project would also incorporate the following energy reduction strategies and sustainability features:
4 • Third party independent inspections would be conducted to assure energy efficiency compliance.
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the project would be rated 14 seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER), 12 energy efficiency ratio (EER) and 92 percent ultra efficient.
• Solar panels would be provided ranging from 3.71 kilowatts (kW) to 3.98 kW.
• Windows would be argon -filled vinyl low- e, double strength glass to reduce energy and increase ultraviolet (UV) blockage.
Additionally, the project would be designed to include the following water and wastewater conservation measures:
• Install all lead-free plumbing fixtures including water-saving shower heads rated
1.75 gallons per minute (gpm) and sink faucets rated to 1.5 gpm.
• Install water conservation toilets with a flush rate of 1.228 gpm
• Install water -wise landscaping and drought tolerant native California and/or Mediterranean plant species.
• Install Intellisense Environmental sensitive landscape controllers.
Grading and Construction
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a period of 36 months starting on April 2024. Site preparation would include removal of rocks, debris, and vegetation from the project site. The proposed project would have 5,500 cubic yards of cut and 80,000 cubic yards of fill, with a net import of 74,500 cubic yards of soil . Dry utility construction would follow, including construction of electrical utilities consisting of conduit, services, transformers, vaults, boxes and streetlights. Street construction would follow, including subgrade preparation, base rock, concrete curbs gutters, valley gutters, ramps and sidewalks, paving and perimeter landscaping and irrigation. Block walls, fences and amenities, would be installed after grading operations and be completed after paving operations. Construction of the proposed project would comply with City standards, including the City’s current building code, landscape standards, and lighting standards. The project would be constructed using a minimum of Tier 3 construction equipment. In addition, the project site would be graded similar to other developments throughout the City.
The construction schedule for each project
development phase is outlined below.
5 Project Phase Development Phase Estimated Construction Period
I
Site Development April 2024 – September 2024
Home Building June 2024 – August 2025
II
Site Development September 2024 – April 2025
Home Building April 2025 - April - 2027
Building Program
The proposed project would be constructed in two phases . Phase 1 of the proposed project would include the development of approximately 110 single- family residential units with an average size of approximately 1,514 square feet per unit. Phase 1 would be located on the northeast corner of North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue and would be accessed through the two ingress and egress streets located on North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue. Phase 1 would include the construction of an approximately 15,207- square-foot pool and recreation area, and construction of North Armstrong and East McKinley Avenues. The proposed project would remove 5 existing power poles along North Armstrong Avenue, and two existing power poles located along the project site's northern boundary under this phase.
Phase 2 of the proposed project would include the development of approximately 216 single-family residential units with an average size of approximately 1,514 square feet per unit. Phase 2 would be located east of Phase 1 and North of East McKinley Avenue and to the west, by Mill No. 36 Canal. Phase 2 would include the construction of the onsite approximately 11,777 square foot park and removal of the two existing power poles located at the northeast corner of the project site. 6 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Residential - Low
Density/ Medium
Low Density
RS-4, Residential Single-
Family, Medium Low Density
Residential -
Medium Low
Density
East
Residential –
Medium Low
Density/ Open
Space/ Elementary
School
RR NB, Rural Residential,
Neighborhood Beautification
(Fresno County)
Rural Residential
South
Residential - Low
Density/ Medium
Density
RS-5, Residential Single-
Family, Medium Density
Agriculture/Rural
Residential
West
Residential –
Medium Density/
Elementary School
RS-5, Residential Single-
Family, Medium Density
Agriculture/Rural
Residential
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• Planning & Development Department, General Plan Amendment/Rezone; • Department of Public Works, Grading Permit;
• Department of Public Utilities, water connection(s)/sanitary sewer connection(s); • City of Fresno Fire Department;
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District;
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District;
• State Water Resources Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit;
• Pacific Gas & Electric, electrical connection.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on 7 or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.
Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the proposed project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This list includes tribes that requested notification pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) (Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe). The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on December 22, 2022 which included the required 90-
day time period for tribes to request
consultation, which ended on March 21, 2023.
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
E FLORADORA AVE
N ARMSTRONG AVE
CITY OF
FRESNO
UNINCORPORATED
FRESNO COUNTY
CITY OF
FRESNO
E CLINTON AVE
N TEMPERANCE AVE
SOURCE: Esri Streetmap (2021)
I:\HAA2103-TM 6360\GIS\MXD\Regional_Local_Context.mxd (6/8/2022) FIGURE 1
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Regional and Local Context
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Project
Location
ÃÃ43
ÃÃ168
ÃÃ180
ÃÃ41
ÃÃ99
Project Vicinity
LEGENDLEGEND
Project Location
Parcel Boundary
Fresno City Limit
0 500 1000
FEET
Mill DitchMill Ditch
Temperance DitchTemperance Ditch
E Clinton AveE Clinton Ave E Clinton AveE Clinton Ave
E McKinley AveE McKinley Ave
E Olive AveE Olive Ave E Olive AveE Olive Ave
N Armstrong AveN Arm
strong Ave
N Fowler AveN Fowler Ave
N Fowler AveN Fowler Ave
N Armstrong AveN Arm
strong Ave
N Temperance AveN Temperance Av
e
N Temperance AveN Temperance Ave
E Floradora AveE Floradora Ave
E Cambridge AveE Cambridge Ave
E Carmalee Ln
E Yale AveE Yale Ave
E Adena AveE Adena Ave
Mill Ditch
Temperance Ditch
E Clinton Ave E Clinton Ave
E Cambridge Ave
E Yale Ave
E McKinley Ave
E Olive Ave E Olive Ave
N Armstrong Ave
N Fowler Ave
N Fowler Ave
N Armstrong Ave
N Temperance Ave
N Temperance Ave
E Floradora Ave
E Carmalee Ln
E Cambridge AveE Cambridge AveE Cambridge Ave
E Adena Ave
BELTERRA
EAST PARK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
TEMPERENCE-
KUTNER
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
VIRGINIA R. BORIS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
3-HOLE
GOLF
COURSE
10000 500
Project Site Boundary
FEET
SOURCE: NearMap, 2/24/2022; LSA, 2022
I:\HAA1903-TM 6360\G\Fig 2_Aerial Photo of Site & Surrounding LU.ai (6/8/2022) FIGURE 2
VesƟng TentaƟve Tract Map No. 6360
Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding LU
16008 0
FEET
SOURCE: Harbour & Associates, 11/10/2022
I:\HAA1903-TM 6360\G\Fig 3_Site Plan.ai (7/26/2023)
FIGURE 3
VesƟng TentaƟve Tract Map No. 6360
Site Plan
11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Noise
☒ Air Quality ☐ Population & Housing
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Public Services
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Recreation
☐ Energy ☒ Transportation
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Wildfire
☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance ☐ Land Use and Planning
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_X_
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
___
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed 12 adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propose d project, nothing further is required.
____________
_______________________________________________________ Chris Lang, Supervising Planner Date
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT ASSESSED IN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2019050005 PREPARED FOR THE APPROVED FRESNO GENERAL PLAN (GP PEIR):
1. For
purposes of this I nitial S tudy, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “N
o Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less
Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. c. “ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation originally described in the GP PEIR and applied to an individual project, as well as mitigation developed specifically for an individual project. d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.
2. A br
ief 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). 6/21/24
13 3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).
6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
14 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In nonurbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a 15 significant landscape feature. The City of Fresno contains views of highly valued features such as the San Joaquin River, Sierra Nevada Mountain foothills, and buildings in Downtown Fresno. Figure POSS -2 in t he General Plan has identified six vista points along the San Joaquin River bluff.1
The project site is located in a mainly undeveloped area of the City of Fresno , and it is surrounded by residential developments to the north, rural residential uses to the east, rural residential and agricultural uses to the south, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the west . The proposed project would include the construction of a 326-lot residential development for single-family residences. The proposed project would also include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure.
The construction of the proposed project would not affect or block a scenic vista identified in the General Plan. Furthermore, the project site is not located within or in the vicinity of any of the scenic vista points identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact on a scenic vista. This section will not be discussed in the EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
According to the California Department of Transportation mapping of State Scenic Highways,
2 the County of Fresno has one officially designated State Scenic Highway located along State Route 180, east of the City of Fresno, starting approximately 12.6 miles east of the project site. Three eligible State Scenic Highways are also located within the County of Fresno. The nearest one is located along State Route 168, approximately
4.5 miles northwest of the project site. Since there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the immediate vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would not impact a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway or impact scenic resources located within the highway segments or its viewshed. Therefore, no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur as a result of the proposed project. This section will not be discussed in the EIR.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
1 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. Chapter 5: Parks, Open Space, and Schools. Figure POSS-2: San Joaquin River Parkway Path & Trail Access Points. pg.5-19. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/General-Plan-5-Parks-Open-Space-and-Schools-7-19.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). State Scenic Highways. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic- highways (accessed on April 14, 2022).
16 scenic quality?
The proposed project would include the construction of an approximately 326-lot residential development for single -family residences. The project site is currently undeveloped and used to grow agricultural crops , and is surrounded by residential developments to the north, rural residential uses to the east, rural residential and agricultural uses to the south, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the west. The proposed project would change the existing agricultural use of the site to a residential use. The proposed project contains distant views of the Sierra Nevada mountains which may be affected by development of the project site. However, these views are limited and obstructed by existing development north and east of the site. As such, the proposed project would not significantly affect quality of this view.
Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with applicable measurements, height, and design requirements for the proposed Residential Single - Family, Medium Density (RS-5) zoning district, which would be established for the project site subject to completion of the City’s rezone process. Furthermore, the single- family residences that would be constructed in the project site would not represent oversized elements that would greatly differ in size and scale with residential uses to the north.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site and its surroundings, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be discussed in the EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would include the construction of approximately 326 new residential units within the project site, as well as landscaped, recreational, and utility areas.
Implementation of the proposed project w ould introduce new sources of light and glare into the project site. The new sources of light and glare introduced by the proposed project (e.g., building interior lighting , exterior lighting fixtures , and reflective surfaces such as windows) would be comparable to the existing light and glare emitted by residential and rural residential uses directly north and east of the project site and would not represent significant adverse effects to day and nighttime views. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards and the City’s Municipal Code (Article 25, Section 15-2508 Lighting and Glare).
To ensure that the proposed project’s lighting systems do not create a substantial new source of light mitigation measures AES -1 and AES -2 shall be required to provide shielding mechanisms to direct light away from nearby uses. Additionally, m itigation measure AES-3 would ensure that the proposed project’s lighting systems do not create a substantial new source of light by imposing a cap on the intensity of lighting systems based on the average intensity of the surrounding streets. As a result, any new sources of light resulting from the proposed project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources.
17 Additionally, while the project does not propose use of highly reflective glass elements or building materials, mitigation measure AES-4 requires materials used on building facades to be non -reflective. Therefore, any new source of glare would not be subst antial.
Accordingly, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AES -1 through AES -4, the project’s potential impacts would be less than significant . This section will not be discussed in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 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.
Mitigation Measure 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.
Mitigation Measure AES -3: 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.
Mitigation Measure AES -4: Materials used on building facades shall be non- reflective.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental e ffects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
6/21/202
18 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 Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of 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?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
19 The project site is zoned within the Residential Single-Family District (RS-3) of the City of Fresno, indicating that the development of the project site for residential uses is consistent with planned development under the General Plan. The City of Fresno General Plan PEIR identifies that development under the General Plan would result in significant impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project site is classified as “Prime Farmland” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 3. The proposed project would develop the
31.29-acre project site into a 326-lot residential development. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to a non - agricultural use.
In order to assess the significance of project -specific impacts to agricultural resources, associated with the development of the project site, a California LESA Model was prepared for the project site, and is included as an attachment to this Initial Study . The LESA Model is composed of a Land Evaluation (LE) portion, which measures soil quality, and the Site Assessment (SA) portion, which evaluates other factors that contribute to the site’s agricultural importance (e.g., parcel size and on ‐farm investments).
A Final LESA
Score of 0 to 39 points is not considered significant. A final score between 40 to 59 points is considered significant only if the LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. A final score between 60 to 79 points is considered significant unless either the LE or SA subscores is less than 20 points. A final score between 80 to 100 points is considered significant.
The proposed project achieved a Final LESA Score of 68.72 points, with an LE subscore of 49.97 points and a SA subscore of 18.72 points. Because the SA subscore was below 20 points, the conversion of agricultural land associated with implementation of the proposed project would not be considered significant and would not represent a significant impact to agricultural resources under CEQA. Therefore, impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use would be less than significant.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is zoned within the Residential Single-Family District (RS-3) of the City of Fresno. The project is not subjec t to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
3 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed April 14, 2022). 20 defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The project site is zoned within the Residential Single-Family District (RS-3). The project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland. No forest lands or timberland are located on the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to the discussion for c) above. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to discussions a) and c) of section. The project site is not used for timberland production or zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site is classified as “Prime Farmland” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), and as such, development of the project would result in the conversion of Important Farmland. However, the LESA Model prepared for the project site identifies that the conversion of Important Farmland associated with development of the project site would result in a less-than-significant impact. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on Important Farmland. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
DISCUSSION
The proposed project is located in Fresno County and is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulation within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region.
Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have established health- based Ambient Air Quality Standards 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 (PM 10 and PM 2.5). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a 22 reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale.
Pollutants such as PM, CO, SO 2, and Pb are considered local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) is under State non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5) standards.
The Air Basin is also classified as non- attainment for both the federal ozone 8- hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard.
A threshold of significance is defined by the SJVAPCD in its Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI)
4 as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or
performance level of a particular environmental effect. Non- compliance with a threshold of significance means the effect will normally be determined to be significant. Compliance with a threshold of signifi cance means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of projects as shown in Table 1 below.
5 Table 1: SJVAPCD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance (Tons per Year)
CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Thresholds 100 10 10 27 15 15
Operation Thresholds 100 10 10 27 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.
The emissions thresholds in the SJVAPCD GAMAQI were established based on the attainment status of the air basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects publi c health with an adequate margin of safety, these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the Air Basin into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard in December 2022
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf (accessed April 19, 2022). 5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015b. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of- Significance.pdf (accessed on April 19, 2022).
23 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.6
To assure the Air Basin ’s continued attainment of the USEPA PM 10 standard, the
SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM 10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM
2.5 standard to address the USEPA federal annual PM 2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012. In addition, the SJVAPCD is in the process of developing an attainment strategy to addr ess multiple PM
2.5 standards (1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5
standards) and a plan to demonstrate maintenance of the 1987 PM10 standard as required under the federal Clean Air Act.
For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. Construction and operation of the project may result in an increase in air pollutant emissions. As a result, the project could have a potential adverse effect on the SJVAPCD’s implementation of clean air plans. Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of the project’s consistency with the SJVAPCD’s clean air plans.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of construction - or operational- related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.
Short-term emissions would occur in association with construction activities, including grading, and vehicle/equipment use. Long- term operational emissions are associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions result from t he consumption of electricity. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips and result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. As noted above, specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth by the SJVAPCD.
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions generated by demolition, grading, hauling, and building activities. Emissions from construction
6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. December 15. Website: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015- 8-hour-ozone-standard.pdf (accessed April 2023).
24 equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during site preparation because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils on the site. If not properly controlled, thes e activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, and to a lesser extent CO, SO2, NOx, and volatile organic compounds. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of s oil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.
The development of the proposed project would result in the construction of 32 6 single- family residences over a period of 36 months. The proposed project would also include private landscaping, private pool, private road, private park, private parking, public pedestrian, and public utility uses.
Long-Term (Operational) Emissions. The project would generate long -term air emissions associated with changes in the permanent use of the project site. These long- term emissions are primarily mobile source emissions that would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would also generate energy emissions from electricity usage in the residential development.
Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of a 32 6-lot residential development for single-family residences that would result in the emission of air pollutants in the Air Basin, which is currently in non -attainment for federal and State air quality standards. Therefore, implementation of the project could potentially contribute to air quality impacts, which could cause a cumulative impact in the Air Basin. Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of cumulative air pollutant emissions associated with the project.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter.
Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern 25 boundary.
Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel -fueled vehicles and equipment). Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, the various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on -site would create localized odors. In addition, once developed, proposed uses in the project site could potentially create objectionable odors that could affect adjacent uses. Potential odor emissions resulting from the project would be evaluated in the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
26 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
DISCUSSION
Argonaut Ecological Consulting Inc. conducted a Biological Resource Assessment (BRA)
7 to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources. The following summarizes the resources and methods used to assess the project site.
Resources consulted. Documents and sources of information used to prepare this BRA
7 Argonaut Ecological Consulting Inc. 2021. Biological Resource Assessment Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6360 N. Armstrong at E. McKinley APN 574-140-04 & 05. July 23. 27 include the following:
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Fresno Area (Soils mapper).
• Aerial photography (Google Earth®, Bing®, and historic aerials). • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB/RareFind - Recent version with updates).
• Fresno County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 1984-2014. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning Consultation (IPAC). • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Map. • U.S. Geological Survey, Historical Topographic Map, Clovis Quadrangle, 1919, University of Texas, Austin, Perry-Castañeda Map Collection. • Henry Madden Library, Fresno State University. Historical Aerial Photography collection dating back to 1957.
Data and Literature Review. The California Natural Diversity Database/ RareFind (CNDDB) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) IPAC were consulted to determine the species potentially present within the project site based on location. The purpose of the review was to determine the likelihood of special status species being present on the project site based on the site's distance from documented species occurrences and the presence or absence of habitat types utilized by such species. The CNDDB includes records of reported observations for special status plant and animal species and is queried based on a search radius of USGS quadrangle maps . Table 2 shows the special status species occurrence summary for the project area. H igh- resolution aerial photographs were reviewed to determine if any areas on the project site appear to support the presence of Waters of the U.S. Aerial photographs and wetland mapping were also reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands in the project site.
Table 2: Special Status Species Summary For Project Area Common
Name
Scientific
Name Status Effects Occurrence in the Study Area
Birds
Swainson’s
hawk
Buteo
swainsoni
CT NE Absent. No raptor nests were observed. Species may use the site for foraging.
Tricolored
blackbird
Agesaius
tricolor
CT NE Absent. Suitable breeding habitat is not within the Study Area.
Burrowing owl Athene
Cunicularia
BCC NE Likely Absent. The Study Area is in orchard production and frequent movement of orchard equipment likely precludes occupation. No evidence of occupation or potential
occupation found.
Western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
FT/CE NE Absent. The study area does not support riparian streams or riparian habitat that this species requires.
least Bell’s
vireo
Vireo bellii
pusillus
FE/CE
FE/CE
NE Absent. Breeding habitat historically found in Southern California and the Central Valley, but population was greatly decreased, and breeding was restricted to Southern
California. However, riparian restoration in the Central Valley is beginning to show promise of the species resuming 28 breeding in the Central Valley. No suitable breeding habitat is present within the Study Area.
Mammals
Fresno
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys
nitratoides
CE, FE NE Absent. Species requires a land surface with hummocks as sites for its extensive, but shallow burrow system, and a substrate of suitable compactness to permit burrowing.
Critical habitat limited to area within western Fresno County.
Suitable habitat is not present.
San Joaquin
kit fox
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
CT, FE NE Absent. No suitable habitat is present to support species, no dens.
Plants
Hartweg’s
golden
Sunburst
Pseudobahi
a bahiifolia
CE, FE
1B
NE Absent. Found in Valley grassland habitat. The study area does not support grassland habitat. Habitat appears to be routinely disturbed by agricultural activities and likely precludes establishment.
San Joaquin
adobe
sunburst
Pseudobahi
a peirsonii
CE, FT
1B
NE Absent. Found in Valley grassland habitat. The study area does not support grassland habitat and what nonnative
grassland is present is densely populated with non-native species.
Sanford’s
arrowhead
Sagittaria
sandordii
1B NE Likely Absent: Occurs in slow moving waters and
irrigation canals, ditches, and detention basins. Mill
Ditch supports suitable habitat, but no plants were
observed during the field survey.
Source: Argonaut Ecological Consulting, Inc. (2021)
1 Status= Listing of special status species, unless otherwise indicated CE: California listed as Endangered
CT: California listed as Threatened
FE: Federally listed as Endangered
FT: Federally listed as Threatened
2 Effects = Effect determination
NE: No Effect
ME: May effect, not likely to adversely affect
3 Definition of Occurrence Indicators
Present/Potentially: Species recorded in area
Absent/Likely Absent: Species not recorded in study area and/or CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database provided by CDFG Field Survey. A site survey was performed on March 10, 2021 and again in June 2021.
The majority of the project site was walked, and all habitat features were mapped. Soils, vegetation, and drainage patterns within the project site were inspected to determine the habitat present and the habitat's suitability for species of concern.
Environmental Setting. The project site lies within the San Joaquin Valley and is fairly flat, remaining between 384 and around 390 feet above mean sea level throughout the site. Historically, Dog Creek and Red Bank Slough flowed into what is now Mill No. 36 Canal, located adjacent to the project site’s southern boundary . Habitat found in the project site includes agricultural habitat (orchard), and ruderal habitat (ruderal habitat is characterized by sparse, non- native, and typically weedy vegetation) along the Mill No. 36 Canal and along portions of the site that front adjacent roadways. There are no wetlands or drainage features within the project site, other than the Mill No. 36 Canal. No 29 special-status plants or wildlife are expected to occur within the project site, as the site does not have the conditions or habitat required to support special-status species.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is located in the City of Fresno, is approximately 31.29 acres in size, and is currently used to grow agricultural crops. The project site is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential uses. Based on the field survey, t he project site does not contain critical habitat that could support candidate, sensitive or special -status species.
Furthermore, no special-status species have been identified within the project site or in the vicinity of the site . Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a special-status species, and the impact would be less than significant.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities have been identified within the project site, or within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential uses. As a result, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The project site is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential uses. The only aquatic feature occurring in the project site is Mill No. 36 Canal. No federally protected aquatic resource occur s within the project site, or within the vicinity of the project site , as confirmed by the field survey of the project site, and through review of the National Wetland Inventory Map.
8 As a result, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, and a less than significant impact would occur. This section will not be included in the EIR.
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?
8 Argonaut Ecological Consulting Inc. 2021. op. cit.
30 The project site is currently being used to grow agricultural crops and is surrounded by agricultural and rural residential uses . Refer to discussions a) and c) of this section. No special status or protected species, including native and migratory wildlife, have been identified on the site. Furthermore, the project site does not contain the habitat needed to support wildlife species. Additionally, the project site has not been identified as a corridor for wildlife species. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As described in the BRA, t he project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Though the proposed project is subject to provisions of the City’s Municipal Code regarding trees on public property (Article 3 of Section 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code) . The proposed project would require removal of existing orchards trees from the project site for development. However, existing orchard trees are not within the protected tree list outlined in Section 13 of the municipal code. Additional, there are no existing trees within the project site that would need to be removed. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the existing ordinances. As a result, no impact would occur.
This section will not be included
in the EIR.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. This HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The City of Fresno Planning Area is not located within the boundaries of any approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E HCP , or any other an adopted HCP or NCCP and the proposed project and would have no impact.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, and no mitigation is required.
31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
DISCUSSION
Peak & Associates, Inc. conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) 9 for the
proposed project to assess potential impacts to cultural resources. The following impact discussion summarizes the study and results.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. A record search was conducted for the project area at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on April 26, 2021 (SSJVIC Records Search File No. 21-147; included as Appendix 2 of CRA ). No known archeological sites were found in the project site or within a 0.125- mile radius of the site. No portion of the project site has ever been previously surveyed for prehistoric period cultural resources.
Six surveys have been previously conducted within the 0.125-mile search radius.
Field Assessment. A field survey of the project site was conducted on April 27, 2021.
The project area is agricultural land currently planted with fruit trees. The Mill No. 36 Canal runs adjacent to the project site’s southern boundary . The Mill No. 36 Canal was dry at the time of the survey. The land in the project site is flat and likely leveled for irrigation, with berms spaced evenly apart for rows of orchard trees. The survey employed parallel transects five to seven meters apart, following rows between trees. Closer inspection occurred in areas where soil offered exceptional visibility. No prehistoric or historic period
9 Peak & Associates, Inc. 2021. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Armstrong McKinley Project Area, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6360, City of Fresno, California. June 27. 32 cultural resources were observed during the survey. There are no resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources within the project site.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria: 1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built - environment resources and archaeological sites.
No historical resources have been identified in the project site. However, t he City has determined that impacts to historical resources could occur as a result of development within the City, and that unknown historical resources may be present in undeveloped parcels. Adherence to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require consultation with a qualified historical resource specialist on the event of finding a previously unknown historical resource during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown historical resources to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2).
No archeological resources have been identified on the project site. However, there is potential for unknown archaeological resources to be discovered during project construction. Mitigation Measure CUL- 2 requires that if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction of the proposed project , work in the area would halt and a qualified archaeologist would be consulted. Therefore, adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL -2 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
33 Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. If human remains are identified during project construction, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code shall apply, as appropriate. In addition, the project would comply with Mitigation Measure CUL- 3, which requires notifying the County Coroner and other relevant parties in the event that human remains are found during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL- 3 would reduce potential impacts to unknown human remains to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 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 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-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Mitigation Measure 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 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 archaeologis t 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 34 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 City of Fresno.
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 unti l the City of Fresno approves the measures to 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 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 identified abov e for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
Mitigation Measure CUL -3: 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 unt il 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 Nat ive American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
35 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity and fuel. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output, which is included in Appendix C of the EIR.
Construction-Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over approximately 36 months. The proposed project would require grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.
Construction of the proposed pr oject would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, and construction of the residences. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) woul d be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their sup plies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project would resul t in a less -than-significant impact during project construction.
Operational Energy Use. Energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle and truck trips. The proposed project 36 would be all -electric; therefore, the proposed project would not consume natural gas .
Electricity consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod.
In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project -related trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed project would result in approximately 6,934,713 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year.
The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to
22.9 mpg in 2020.10 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021. 11 Therefore, using the average fuel economy estimates for 2020 and 2021, the proposed project would result in the consumption of approximately 238,675 gallons of gasoline and 184,498 gallons of diesel.
Table 3 shows the estimated potential increased electricity demand and fuel consumption associated with the proposed project.
Table 3: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Electricity Use
(kWh per year)
Natural Gas Use
(therms per year)
Gasoline
Consumption
(gallons per year)
Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(gallons per year)
3,075,585 0 238,675 184,498
Source: LSA (December 2023).
kWh = kilowatt-hours
As shown in Table 3, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 3,075,585 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In 2021, Fresno County consumed 8,378 GWh or 8,378,047,292 kWh.12 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the proposed project would be less than 0.1 percent of Fresno County’s total electricity demand.
In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. As shown above in Table 3, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 238,675 gallons of gasoline and 184,498 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 157 million gallons of diesel and approximately 372 million gallons of gasoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in Fresno County in 2023.
10 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). “Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed May 2023). 11 Ibid.
12 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2021a. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed May 2023). 37 Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Fresno County by less than 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by less than 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage.
The proposed project would exceed Title 24 standards and would install energy efficient appliances. The proposed project would also incorporate the following energy reduction strategies: third party independent inspections would be conducted to assure energy efficiency compliance; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment would be rated 14 seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER), 12 energy efficiency ratio (EER) and 92 percent ultra efficient; solar panels would be provided ranging from 3.71 kilowatts (kW) to 3.98 kW; and windows would be argon- filled vinyl low- e, double strength glass to reduce energy and increase ultraviolet (UV) blockage.
In addition, proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings.
PG&E is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity services. In 2021, a total of 50 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy. 13 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017, and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less -than-significant impact during project operation. As such, the proposed project would not result in a potential significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy res ources during project construction or operation. This section will not be included in the EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least
13 PG&E, 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what- we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed May 2023).
38 environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The most recently CEC adopted energy report is the 202 3 Integrated Energy Policy Report14. The Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of SB 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape -scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to SB 1383), updates on California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.
As indicated above, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conse rvation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to energy, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
14 California Energy Commission, 2023. 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission.
Docket Number: 23-IEPR-01.
39 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
40 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.);
Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e. in the last 11,000 years).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the project vicinity.
The closest active faults are the Nunez Fault,
located approximately 57 miles from the project site, and the Ortigalita Fault, located approximately 67 miles from the project site. Due to the distance of these known faults, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Therefore, potential impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
The City of Fresno is located in an area with historically low to moderate level of 41 seismicity. However, strong ground shaking could occur within the project site during seismic events, and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the nearby Great Valley Fault Zone, the Nunez Fault, or other associated faults could affect the project site through seismic ground shaking. Strong seismic ground shaking could potentially cause structural damage to the proposed project. However, due to the distance of the project site to the known active faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil s that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine- grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. Based on the predicted seismic accelerations, and soil and groundwater conditions typically encountered in the region, general liquefaction potential is low in the Fresno Planning Area. 15 Furthermore,
compliance with the Fresno Municipal Code and the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with seismic -related ground failure would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
iv. Landslides?
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials.
The City of Fresno Planning Area is located within an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the Planning Area. However, there is the potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, such as the San Joaquin River bluff, creeks, drainage basins and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the Planning Area. The project site is located on a relatively flat area and is not located next to any hills , within 300 feet of the San
Joaquin River bluff, or near unlined basins and canals. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
15 City of Fresno. 2020. General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - Geology and Soils. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-GP-Public-Review-Draft-Program-EIR.pdf (accessed July 25, 2023).
42 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The total project site is 31.29 acres, which would be disturbed/developed during proposed grading and construction activities. Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. However, this impact would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through compliance with water quality control measures, which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study. This impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As described in response to a) in this section, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides . Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact related to the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. The project site contains Ramona loam and Hanford fine sandy loam, soils with medium to low clay content and medium to low shrink- swell potential .
16 Compliance with the California Building Code requirements would ensure the implementation of design features that would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less -than-significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil s affecting the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less -than- significant impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
16 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed April 19, 2022). 43 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The project site would be served by a wastewater conveyance system maintained by the Wastewater Management Division (WMD) of the City of Fresno. Wastewater from the City’s collection system is treated at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed p roject would have no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This section will not be included in the EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to exist within or near the project site, and the proposed project is not expected to alter or destroy a paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. However, d evelopment of previously undisturbed parcels in the City could result in the discovery of paleontological resources or unique geologic features . Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would require the project to assess the presence of paleontological resources or unique geologic f eatures if construction activities occur in undisturbed soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would also require the implementation of mitigation measures issued by a qualified paleontologist in the event of finding previously unknown resources during project construction. Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 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 commence. 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 recom mendations 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. 44 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 resour ces 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 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 a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualifi ed paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
DISCUSSION
45 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse green-house gas emission impact if the project would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance -based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets required standards, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant greenhouse gas emission impacts.
The City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan), adopted in December 2014 and updated in 2021, meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Therefore, the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered significan t if the proposed p roject is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update.
The EIR will analyze greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project and determine whether the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update to define significance of greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in discussion a) above, the City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update is Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5) implemented to reach Statewide, regional, and local greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
46 The EIR will determine whether the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update and other applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
47 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The proposed project consists of single -family residential uses and would not introduce manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials into the project site. The proposed residential use would utilize small quantities of common hazardous substances, including paints, fuels, oils and cleaning agents during project operation. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation w ould comply with applicable standards and regulations , including General Plan Policies NS -4-a, NS-4-e, 48 and NS-4-f.17 Compliance with applicable regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous substances would result in a less-than-significant impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
• Policy NS-4-a: Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.
• Policy NS-4-e: Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.
• Policy NS -4-f: Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See discussion a) above. Additionally, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) 18 19were prepared by Krazan and Associates, Inc. for the project parcels (i.e., APNs 574- 140-04 and 574-140-05) to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the previous ownership and uses of the site. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
The scope of work for the Phase I ESAs included a reconnaissance of existing on- site conditions and observations of adjacent property uses, a review of Project Applicant - provided documents, historical aerial photographs of the site , a nd pertinent building permit records, cross-referencing directories and historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
17 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan - Noise and Safety Element. pp. 9-33, 9-34. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf (accessed July 25, 2023).
18 Krazan and Associates, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ryan Metzler Agricultural Property, East of North Armstrong Avenue and North of the Mill Ditch, APN 574-140-05, Fresno, California 93727. March
30. 19 Krazan and Associates, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Hagerty Property, Northeast of N.
Armstrong Avenue & Mill Ditch, APN 574-140-04, Fresno, California 93727. May 12. 49 (SFIMs), interviews with people knowledgeable of the previous and current ownership and uses of the project site, and a review of local regulatory agency records and local, state, and federal regulatory agency lists.
The project site consists of agricultural land currently used for cultivation of fruit orchard.
The project site is relatively flat and located approximately 340 to 345 feet above mean sea level. The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley, which is dominated by sedimentary deposits derived from the erosion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Near- surface sediments are dominated by sands and silty sands with lesser silts, minor clays, and gravel. Groundwater in the project vicinity is reported to be first encountered at a depth of approximately 80 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Assessment of the project site did not identify building structures or evidence of hazardous materials storage or waste onsite. The only other structures found on the site include one electrically powered agricultural water well and associated booster pump, agricultural filtration system and pole- mounted electrical transformer located along the site’s southern boundary, and another agricultural water well and associated booster pump, as well as two pole -mounted electrical transformers, located along the sit e’s northeastern corner.
Review of historical aerial photographs of the site revealed that the project site has been in agricultural use since at least 1937. Although the potential exists that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides were historically applied to the orchards grown on the project site , 1) no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of the site assessment, and 2) it is anticipated that any environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides potentially located onsite will be dislocated and diluted as a result of the grading and trenching operations which will be conducted in conjunction with the development of the site. As such, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides related to crop cultivation to exist in the near-surface soils onsite at concentrations which would require regulatory action is considered low.
One potential area of concern due to a data gap was identified for the site, as one residential unit with associated out -structures was observed in historical aerial photographs of the site between 1937 and 1962. While no underground storage tanks (USTs) for the project site were identified on file with the local regulatory agencies, USTs on rural or agricultural properties historically have been exempt from requirements for registration with regulatory agencies. As such, it is unknown whether subsurface features such as unregistered USTs may exist on the site and remain unknown based upon the absence of any regulatory or municipality data or evidence indicating their presence or location.
However, based on review of existing files documenting the project site, review of historical aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, contacts with the local regulatory agencies, and an interview with a representative of the owner of the project site, there is no evidence that recognized environmental conditions exist in co nnection with the historical uses of the project site.
50 Additionally, review of government database report s, and consultation with local regulatory agencies indicates that there is no evidence that RECs exist in connection with the project site from adjacent or vicinity property uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or result in a foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the General Plan Policies outlined above, which require compliance with local, State and federal standards and procedures to avoid the release or upset of hazardous materials .
This impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The closest existing school s to the project site are the Virginia R. Boris Elementary School, located approximately 0.28-mile northeast of the project site, Temperance-Kutner Elementary School, located approximately 0.55-mile south of the project site and Roger S. Oraze Elementary School, located approximately 1.12 miles north of the project site.
Additionally, the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) is planning the construction of a new elementary school located at the intersection of McKinley and Fowler Avenues 20, approximately 0.39-mile west of the site. As previously stated, the proposed project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk . In addition, all hazardous materials within the project site would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project would not result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances within one- quarter mile of a school, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
According to the DTSC EnviroStor database,21 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials
20 Clovis Unified School District (CUSD). 2022. Annual Report to the Community. Website:
https://www.cusd.com/AnnualReport.aspx (accessed July 25, 2023). 21 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. EnviroStor. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno (accessed April 19, 2022). 51 sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 22 As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and there would be no impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest airports to the project site include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 8.3 miles southwest of the project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the project site. The nearest medical center helipads (HP) include the Saint Agnes Medical Center HP, located approximately
7.0 miles northwest of the project site and the Valley Children’s Hospital HP located approximately 10.6 miles northwest of the project site. 23 Due to the distance between the
project site and local helipads, operations at these locations are not expected to pose a safety hazard for people in the project site.
The project site is within Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Within Zone 6, prohibited uses include outdoor stadiums and similar high intensity uses, as well as uses that would represent hazards to flight including physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. 24 The proposed project would include a 326 -lot residential development compliant with the with applicable measurements, height, and design requirements for the proposed RS -5 zoning for the project site, and as such would not introduce an incompatible use that would represent a visual hazard. The project site is currently designated Low -Density Residential in the General Plan and zoned within the RS-3 District. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Medium Density Residential and RS -5 respectively. The Project Applicant would be required to submit a General Plan Amendment and Rezone application and comply with all the City’s associated requirements and fees. After fulfilment of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone requirements, the proposed residential density of the project would be compatible with permitted densities for the project site’s zoning and General Plan land use desi gnation. Additionally, the proposed residential use is not expected to result in electronic interference to aircrafts in the vicinity. Within Zone 6, there is generally no concern with regard to any object up to 100 feet above ground level (AGL) unless it is located on high ground or it is a solitary object (e.g. , an antenna) more than 35 feet AGL. The proposed project is located in a generally flat area and would include
22 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ (accessed April 19, 2022).
23 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. website:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/# (accessed April 19, 2022). 24 Fresno Council of Governments, 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December. 52 residential units with dimensions in compliance with proposed zoning for the site. As such, the project would not introduce oversized objects or solitary objects that would result in a physical hazard to aircrafts. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to airport-related hazards, and the potential impact would be less than significant . This section will not be included in the EIR.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war -caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The City's full ‐time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up ‐to‐date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOC. The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways that would permanently block the circulation of emergency response services or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the EOC. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency evacuation plans in the City, and this impact would be less than significant.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. The project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not loc ated within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).
25 Therefore, the proposed project would
not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
25 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fresno County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/ (accessed April 2023).
53 The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
X
i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:
X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
54 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During project construction , there would be an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies, including Mill No. 36 Canal, located directly south of the project site.
Because the project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, it is required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010- 0014-DWG and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). The project is also subject to Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, Section 6- 714, Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Storm Water Pollutants of the City’s Municipal Code.
The Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion and sediment 55 control, designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Section 6-714 of the City’s Municipal Code also requires the implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent technologically and economically feasible to prevent and reduce pollutants from entering stormwater during construction.
Therefore, adherence to the required SWPPP and the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of construction BMPs, would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants into Mill No. 36 Canal during construction and impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.
Operation. Operation of the proposed project could result in surface water pollution associated with chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation into nearby water bodies.
The City of Fresno operates under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (Order No. R5-2016-0040-014, NPDES No. CAS0085324).
Consistent with the City of Fresno’s MS4 Permit, the project would implement storm water quality controls recommended in the Fresno- Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Construction and Post-Construction Guidelines. Adherence to the City of Fresno’s MS4 Permit
would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants during project operations and impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.
Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. The majority of the project site would be impervious surface; and therefore, it is not expected that stormwater would infiltrate during project operations. Because stormwater would be collected and diverted to the storm drain system, there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. Therefore, project operations would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The City of Fresno overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Temporary dewatering from excavations could be necessary during construction. Construction-related dewatering would be temporary and limited to the area of excavations on the project site and would not substantially contribute to 56 depletion of groundwater supplies. Operation of the project would not require groundwater extraction. Following project implementation, there would be an increase in impervious surface area given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located internally and around the perimeter of the project site. An increase in impervious surface area decreases infiltration, which can decrease the amount of water that is able to recharge the aquifer/groundwater. However, the stormwater from the project site would be collected and directed to the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s ( FMFCD) storm drain system, which includes infiltration facilities to replenish groundwater supplies in the basin. Therefore, the project would not impede the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s ability to manage groundwater. Thus, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable management of the Kings Subbasin. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Additionally, as discussed below in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the City receives its water supply from groundwater and surface water. The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and di stribution systems shall be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in the City’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies. Through careful planning, Fresno has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplies and surface water treatment facilities, intentional recharge, and conservation, thereby reducing groundwater pumping. The City continually monitors impacts of land use changes and development project proposals on water supply facilities by assigning fixed demand allocations to each parcel by land use as currently zoned or proposed to be rezoned.
The City relies on groundwater and surface water supplies to meet water demands. In 2006, Fresno updated its Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan designed to ensure the Fresno metro area has a reliable water supply through 2050. The plan implements a conjunctive use program, combining groundwater, treated surface water, artificial recharge, and an enhanced water conservation program.
The General Plan policies require the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.
Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the City of Fresno UWMP, the Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan would address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would 57 not decrease groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Construction of the proposed project would result in grading on the site that would expose native soils that could be subject to the effects associated with wind and water erosion unless adequate measures are taken to limit the transport of soils in surface water from the site to downstream locations.
Stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control for the City of Fresno, City of Clovis, and the unincorporated areas within the City of Fresno’s sphere of influence are provided by the FMFCD. Stormwater from the project site would be directed through internal drainage infrastructure (e.g., manholes, drainage basins, and drainage lines) towards proposed drainage infrastructure located along North Armstrong Avenue and along the future extension of East McKinley Avenue.
Stormwater from the project site would then be redirected towards ponding Basin BS, located 0.26-mile southwest of the project site, across Mill No. 36 Canal.
As discussed previously, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance with the requirements in the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, and with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
The project would increase the amount of impervious surface, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, and which can more effectively transport sediments to receiving waters. At project completion, much of the project site would be impervious surface area and not prone to onsite erosion or siltation because no exposed soil would be present in these areas. The remaining portion of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize onsite erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to establish and maintain existing drainage patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in an impact related to substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
This section will not be included in the EIR.
58 ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
During construction, soil would be disturbed and compacted, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on site. With adherence to the Construction General Permit, construction impacts related to altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site would be less than significant.
While the project would permanently increase the impervious surface area in the project site , the project would be required to direct runoff towards proposed drainage infrastructure along North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue.
In addition, prior to final development approval, the project applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and Drainage Report to the FMFCD for review and approval.
According to the City’s preliminary review, permanent drainage service is available for the project area, provided that the Project Applicant can verify to the satisfaction of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to existing and proposed Master Plan inlet s and drainage infrastructure. The FMFCD ’s existing Master Plan drainage system is designed to serve medium density residential uses, and the proposed project would introduce a medium density residential use in the site. As such, the runoff from the project site would be able to be safely conveyed through proposed Master Plan drainage infrastructure on North Armstrong Avenue and East McKinley Avenue. Additionally, the project would be required to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, the project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be considered less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Construction. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located internally and around the perimeter of the project site. However, compliance with pre- existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the Construction General Permit and implementation of a SWPPP, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project construction to c ause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existi ng or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, construction would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
59 Operations. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including the MS4 Permit, would reduce or eliminate the potential for project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, project operations would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 regulations (44CFR60), and the floodplain ordinance of the City of Fresno require that placement and flood provision structures within a floodplain not result in a cumulative change in the floodplain water surface that exceeds one foot. In addition, the regulations under 44CFR60 do not allow placement of structures within a regulatory floodway unless that placement would not result in any increase in the floodplain water surface elevation, meaning that there is no displacement or redirection of the floodway.
The City’s floodplain ordinance (Chapter 11, Article 6 of the City’s Municipal Code) requires that a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California certify that no displacement of floodwater would result from the flood proofing of a structure within a floodplain or a regulatory floodway. The majority of the project site is not located within the 100- year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
26 However, the project site is located adjacent to
Mill No. 36 Canal, which is a 100-year flood hazard area (i.e., Zone AE) .
Construction in the vicinity of Mill No. 36 Canal would be compliant with applicable requirements of the City’s floodplain ordinance (Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 6) , including specifications for residential uses (e.g., elevation of structures constructed in Zone AE up to or six inches above base flood elevation), and 44 CFR60 requirements (e.g., for non -residential and utility structures , be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy). The Project Applicant would obtain necessary development permits and comply with applicable design and pre - and post -construction inspection requirements. As a result, the impact would be less than significant . This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
26 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed April 20, 2022). 60 The project site is not located in tsunami, or seiche zones. Refer to discussion c) iv regarding flood hazards. Refer to discussion a) in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials regarding the use of hazardous materials within the project site. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones . This section will not be discussed in the EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City is located within the Kings Sub -basin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The planning documents regarding water resources for the City include City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan. The project would be required to adhere to the City’s water resources planning documents, NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation, as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements. Furthermore, the project would be required to implement a SWPPP, which would control water quality of runoff from the project site. As a result, the project would not conflict with any applicable water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and the impact would be less than significant . This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
61 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas.
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. The project site is bounded by residential developments to the north, rural residential uses to the east, rural residential and agricultural uses to the south, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the west. The proposed project would not construct features that would divide an established community or remove means of access that would impair mobility in a community. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact . This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City of Fresno General Plan and zoned within the Residential Single-Family District (RS-3). The project would require a change to the General Plan land use designation and zoning of the project site. The Project Applicant would need to submit a Plan Amendment and Rezone application and comply with all of the City’s associated requirements and fees. The impact of this land use change would be less than significant with implementation of the City’s applicable requirements. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
62 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -
important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The principal area for mineral resources in the City of Fresno Planning Area is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 1, MRZ 2, and MRZ 3. The project site is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River Corridor, is not a MRZ, and it doesn’t contain a MRZ. T herefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. 27 28 The
impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would have a les s-than-significant impact. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
27 Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. Website: 8398- background_report_june04.pdf (fresnocountyca.gov) ( accessed November 2023). 28 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines & Mineral Resource Related Data & Maps. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/ (accessed May 2, 2022). 63 The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a 64 logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensit ive. The A - weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.
As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound.
Equivalent continuous sound level (L
eq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise
over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the L
eq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (L dn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24- hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly L eq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). L dn
is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and L
dn are within one dBA of each other and are
normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.
A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Fresno.
The City of Fresno addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan and in Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code. Listed below are objectives and policies related to noise that are presented in the Noise Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Noise Element sets noise standards for transportation and stationary noise sources as shown in Table 4 and Table 5, below.
65 Table 4: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Land Use1
Outdoor Activity
Areas2 Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB2
Residential 65 45 -
Transient Lodging 65 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music
Halls
- - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 - 45
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dB = decibel(s)
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Table 5: Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level
(Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
Source: City of Fresno General Plan (2014).
1 The Planning and Development Director, on a case- by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB.
dB = decibel(s)
dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum A-weighted sound level
• Policy NS -1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise- sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dBA L dn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise- sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA L dn or
CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non -sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property 66 line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.
• Policy NS-1-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range.
Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB L dn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS -1-a, and study alternative less noise - sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 4 as conditions of permit approval.
• Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Façades with substantial weight and insulation;
o Installation of sound- rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas;
o Installation of sound -rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
o Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
o Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; o Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.
• NS-1-i Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 4 and 5 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 4 and 5 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.
Noise mitigation measures may include:
o The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
o Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; o Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; o Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and 67 o Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. • Policy NS -1-j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.
Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. Section 10-109 states that construction noise is exempted from City noise regulations provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing.
The closest sensitive receptors include single-family residential uses located adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site and the single- family residential uses located across North Armstrong Avenue, approximately 75 feet west of the project site.
The following section describes how the short -term construction and long- term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.
Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short - term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construc tion are described below.
Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 6 lists typical construction equipment noise levels (L
max) recommended for noise impact
assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway 68 Construction Noise Model. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed.
Table 6: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description
Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).
Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/ Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Two types of short -term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 6, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA L max with trucks
passing at 50 feet.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during grading and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as cons truction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.
69 Table 6 lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 88 dBA L max at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the project site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders.
Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.
Construction details (e.g., construction fleet activities) are not yet known; therefore, this analysis assumes that scrapers, bulldozers, and water trucks/pickup trucks would be operating simultaneously during construction of the proposed project. As discussed above, noise levels associated with this equipment operating simultaneously would be approximately 88 dBA L
max at 50 feet.
As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site include single -family residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s northern and eastern boundaries. Based on building setbacks, the closest sensitive receptor s include the adjacent single-family residential uses north of the project site, which are approximately 35 feet from project construction activities. Based on a reduction in noise of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, there would be in increase of approximately 3 dBA from the active construction area to the nearest residence. In addition, these residences have a solid wood fence, which would reduce noise levels by approximately 5 dBA. Therefore, the closest off -site sensitive receptor may be subject to short -term construction noise reaching 86 dBA Lmax (88 dBA Lmax + 3 dBA – 5 dBA) when construction is occurring.
However, construction equipment would operate at various locations within the 31.29- acre project site and would only generate maximum noise levels when operations occur closest to the receptor. To ensure that the project’s potential construction- related noise impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the pote ntial impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI -1 requires the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. These measures would ensure that the project’s potential construction-related noise impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
Operational Noise Impacts The proposed project would include the construction of 326 new single- family residential units . Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise 70 varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level.
As discussed in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project 29, the
proposed project would generate approximately 3,074 daily trips. The adjacent Armstrong Avenue carries approximately 10,580 average daily trips. Project trips would represent a small increase in noise level, up to approximately 1.1 dBA CNEL along Armstrong Avenue based on the following equation:
𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑎𝑎 (𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) = 10 ∗ lo g10 �𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 Future Volume �
In general, noise level changes of less than 3 dBA are not perceptible in an outdoor environment. Therefore, since project trips would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity, project trips would not result in a perceptible (3 dBA) increase in traffic noise levels at receptors in the project vicinity.
In addition, with implementation of the proposed project, there would be an increase in activity at the project site. The project site itself is surrounded by residential, rural residential and agricultural uses. Noise from the proposed project would be similar to the existing surrounding residential uses and would generally include noise from vehicles, air conditioner units, and other similar equipment. It is not expected that the proposed project would result in a perceptible (3dBA) increase in noise to s urrounding land uses.
Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Operation of the proposed project would result in similar noise levels as existing conditions and, therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less.
29 LSA, 2023. Traffic Impact Study Tract Map 6360 Project, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. March. 71 This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy -duty earthmoving equipment), and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses.
Groundborne vibration levels
from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.
The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on -road vehicles make it unusual for on- road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on- road vehicles is necessary. Therefore, once constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant.
Construction Vibration. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in peak particle velocity ( PPV) (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in root -mean-square (RMS) are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non- engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).
Table 7 shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source.
As shown in Table 7, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residents and workers but would not cause any damage to the buildings.
72 Table 7: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 20 18).
Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = micro-inches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/ office buildings in the project vicinity). Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off -site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally wi thin the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.
L
vdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
As shown in Table 7, for typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 87 VdB at 25 feet. As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site include single- family residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s northern and eastern boundaries.
Based on building setbacks, the closest sensitive receptor s include the adjacent single-family residential uses north of the project site, whi ch are approximately 35 feet from project construction activities.
At 35 feet, these single-family residences would experience vibration levels of up to 83 VdB (0. 054 PPV [in/sec]), which would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for non -engineered timber and masonry building damage when bulldozers 73 and loaded trucks operate at or near the project construction boundary. Although construction vibration levels at surrounding uses would have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed and impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest medical center helipads (HP) include the Saint Agnes Medical Center HP, located approximately 7.0 miles northwest of the project site and the Valley Children’s Hospital HP located approximately 10.6 miles northwest of the project site. Due to the distance, operations at these heliports are not expected to result in excessive noise levels at the project site. The nearest airports to the project site include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 8.3 miles southwest of the project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the project site.
Each of these airports has an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies . In addition, although aircraft -related noise is occasionally audible on the project site, the site does not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of any of these airports or helipads, including the Fresno Yosemite International Airport
30. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to the excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. The impact would be less than significant . This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. • Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site. • Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities.
30 Fresno Yosemite International Airport, 2022. Forecast Conditions (2022) Noise Exposure Map. Website:
https://flyfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2022-NEM_Contour.pdf (accessed May 2023). 74 • Ensure that all general construction-related activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sunday.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project site is currently designated Low-Density Residential in the General Plan and zoned within the Residential Single- Family District (RS -3), which is intended to provide for a variety of single-family residences built to urban or suburban standards to suit a spectrum of individual lifestyles and needs, and to ensure availability throughout the city of the range of housing types necessary for all segments of the community, consistent with the General Plan . The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Medium Density Residential and Residential Single- Family, Medium Density (RS-5). The project site does not currently contain any permanent residents . 75 Although the project site is zoned and designated for residential use, the proposed zoning would introduce higher-density residential uses on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would potentially result in an increase in unplanned population growth in the City.
The proposed project would introduce 32 6 single-family residences into the project site, which would increase population in the project site by approximately 988 residents. 31,32
The addition of 988 new residents represents approximately 0.2 percent of Fresno’s 2020 population of 542,107.33 As such, population growth in the area as a result of residential land uses would be negligible.
The Project Applicant would need to submit a Plan Amendment and Rezone application and comply with all the City’s associated requirements and fees. Population growth resulting from site re -zoning and land use change would be less than significant after implementation of the City’s applicable requirements. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently used to grow agricultural crops. The proposed project would introduce 326 new single- family residential units into the project site and would not necessitate the displacement or removal of existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of replacement housing, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
31 Based on an average of 3.03 persons per household in the City of Fresno , as identified by the Census Bureau. 32 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Fresno City, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia (accessed February 2023). 33 Ibid.
76 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
X
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance object ives for any of the public services:
Fire protection
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed project. There are 2 0 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station, Fire Station 10, located approximately 3 miles northwest from the project site.
Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in the City. The project would introduce 326 single-family residences into the project site. The Project Applicant would need to submit a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The 77 project would be consistent with the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit plans to the FFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the project would conform to applicable building codes. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a Fire Facilities Fee pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.9 of the Fresno Code of Ordinances to account for the potential impacts to fire service facilities.
The FFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required.
34 The proposed project would not result
in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. The incremental increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on fire protection.
Police protection
The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the project site. The Police Department Patrol Division is divided into five policing districts with the nearest being the Northeast Policing District, located approximately 11 miles northwest of the project site. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and r ezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services. The Project Applicant would be required to pay a Police Facilities Fee pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.8 of the Fresno Code of Ordinances to account for the potential impacts to police protection services.
The FPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site.
35 36 The construction of new or expanded
police facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police
34 City of Fresno. November 9, 2023. Chris Lang, Supervising Planner, personal communication. 35 Ibid.
36 City of Fresno. November 13, 2023. Chris Lang, Supervising Planner, personal communication. 78 facilities or services and impacts to police protection would represent a less -than- significant impact.
Schools
Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) would provide school services to the proposed project. The proposed project involves a residential use that might generate an increase in demand for school services in the City. The CUSD currently serves approximately 43,000 students and operates 34 elementary schools, five intermediate schools, five high schools, one adult school and six alternative education campuses .
Planned growth under the General Plan would increase demand for school services.
The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements
The proposed project would increase the demand for school services in the vicinity.
The Project Applicant would be required to pay appropriate school developer fees at time of building permits to address potential impacts to CUSD services, as set forth in Education Code Section 17620, pursuant to Government Code 65995.
Payment of school developer fees will address potential impacts related to constructing school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional school facilities or services and impacts related to increased demand for school services would represent a less-than-significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
Parks
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single- family residences. The proposed project would also include the construction of a 11,777 square-foot community park, and a 15,207 square-foot private pool and recreation area. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase demand for parks in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and r ezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The proposed project could increase the demand for park services and nearby recreational facilities.
However, the proposed project would include the construction of a private park and recreation area that would offset the demand for public parks in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a Park Facilities Fee, pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.7 of the Fresno Code of Ordinances at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional park facilities, and impacts to parks would represent a less-than-significant impact. 79 Other public facilities
Planned growth under the General Plan would increase the demand for public facilities in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
Development of the proposed project could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with the City the payment of applicable impact fees to mitigate impacts to public facilities resulting from the proposed project.
As such, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to public services, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
DISCUSSION
80 a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, a p rivate pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. T he development of the project would result in population growth which could increase the demand for nearby recreational facilities. Nearby parks that may be affected by increased demand for recreational facilities resulting from the project include Al Radka Park, a 14.35- acre community park located approximately 1.12 miles southwest from the project site, Airways
Pool Complex, a 1.35-acre special use facility located approximately 2.0 miles northwest from the project site, Reedy Discovery Center, a 5.64 -acre special use facility located approximately 3.2 miles west from the project site and Pilibos Park, a 13.22 -acre community park located approximately 3.75 miles southwest from the project site.
The Project Applicant would be required to pay a Park Facility Fee pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.7 of the Fresno Code of Ordinances at the time building permits are obtained.
The impact fee would serve to offset project impact on existing recreational facilities.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project would introduce 32 6 single-family residences into the project site, which would increase population in the project site by approximately 988 residents. 3738
The population growth resulting from the proposed project could increase the demand for nearby recreational facilities. As identified in the City’s Parks Master Plan 39, the City of Fresno owns and operates a park system that includes more than 80 public parks, trails, regional parks, neighborhood parks, educational facilities, community pools, splash parks, and dual‐use ponding basins. The Parks Master Plan identified a level of service (LOS) goal for pocket, neighborhood and community parks of 3 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. For regional, open space/natural areas, and special use parks, a LOS goal of 2 acres of parks per 1,000 residents was identified. The project site is within the service area of Al Radka Park, a 14.35-acre community park located 1.12 miles southwest from the project site, Airways Pool Complex , a 1.35-acre special use facility located approximately 2.0 miles northwest from the project site, Reedy Discovery Center, a 5.64-
37 Based on an average of 3.03 persons per household in the City of Fresno , as identified by the Census Bureau. 38 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Fresno City, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia (accessed February 2023). 39 City of Fresno. 2017. Fresno Parks Master Plan. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/themes/cityoffresno/_largefiles/FresnoPMPFinalDocumentwithAppA051818_S.pdf (accessed July 25, 2023).
81 acre special use facility located approximately 3.2 miles west from the project site and Pilibos Park, a 13.22-acre community park located approximately 3. 75 miles southwest from the project site. The community and special-use recreational facilities located in the vicinity of the project site would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional 988 residents resulting from the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment , and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to recreation, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The Mobility and Transportation Element of the City of Fresno General Plan outlines the 82 necessary transportation system and infrastructure standards needed to serve planned land use and development in the City . This Element includes objectives and policies for all modes of transportation, and for all users of streets and highways, transit, sidewalks and trails.
The 2016 City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in the City of Fresno. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that serves all residents of Fresno. This plan seeks to achieve the following goals:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno
• Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities • Improve the geographic equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno
• Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks
Vehicular access to the project site includes North Armstrong Avenue to the wes t, and East McKinley Avenue, to the south. The nearest bus stop is located near the intersection of East Princeton Drive and North Fowler Avenue, approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the project site. No walking trails or bike trails are present in the project vicinity.
The proposed project is located within Traffic Impact Zone (TIZ) III , as defined in the Mobility and Transportation Element of the City of Fresno General Plan. 40 According to
the Mobility and Transportation Element, projects in TIZ III that generate more than 100 peak hour trips would require a detailed traffic analysis. The proposed project would introduce 988 residents to the project , and it’s expected to surpass the 100 peak hour trips threshold for TIZ III as determined in the General Plan . This would be a potentially significant impact. The EIR will further analyze potential conflict between the proposed project and the City’s transportation programs and policies.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section
40 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan - Mobility and Transportation Element. p. 4-32. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp4-Mobility-and-Transportation-9-30- 2021.pdf (accessed July 25, 2023).
83 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT), including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Tec hnical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The proposed project would consist of
the construction of a 32 6-lot residential
development for single- family residences. The proposed project would also include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. According to the City’s VMT Thresholds, projects generating less than 500 daily trips could be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. As discussed in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project 41, the proposed project would generate approximately 3,074 daily trips.
Therefore, the proposed project does not qualify for a streamlined project VMT analysis under the screening criteria identified by the City. The EIR will further analyze project VMT impacts and, if possible, provide mitigation measures to reduce impacts below significance levels.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single-family
41 LSA, 2023. Traffic Impact Study Tract Map 6360 Project, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. March. 84 residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. Currently, there is not enough information to determine whether the project would introduce hazardous geometric design features to the vicinity. The EIR will further analyze project design features, and, if applicable, identify mitigation measures for potential hazards.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site via North Armstrong Avenue, and East McKinley Avenue. Furthermore, the proposed project’s site plan would be subject to review and approval by the FFD to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. In addition, as discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project implementation would not physically interfere with emergency evacuation to and from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required. This section will not be included in the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
85 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi -
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQ A Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register 86 or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the proposed project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These tribes included: Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians , Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians , Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government , Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, Table Mountain Rancheria, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians , North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians , and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies provide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public agency.
The purpose of AB 52 is to provide the opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s), as defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2107(a). Under AB 52, public agenc ies shall reach out to California Native American Tribes who have requested to be notified of projects in areas within or which may have been affiliated with their tribal geographic range. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Table Mountain Rancheria and Dumna Wo Wah Tribes were invited to consult. The contracted Tribes did not request consultation.
No tribal cultural resources or historical resources were identified on the project site. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground- disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL- 1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 included above in Section V, Cultural Resources, would apply to the project and would reduce potential impacts to unknown historical resou rces to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3.
87 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
DISCUSSION
88 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Fresno through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Water and Wastewater Management Divisions. The proposed project would connect to an existing water service pipeline located along North Armstrong Avenue, and proposed wastewater service pipelines located along North Armstrong Avenue and the future extension of East McKinley Avenue. The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner which is compliant with the Department of Public Utiliti es standards, specifications, and policies. The Project Applicant would need to contact the Department of Public Utilities to determine service requirements.
Electric power and telecommunication facilities would require connections to the project site. However, because the project site is located near existing infrastructure, connection to these facilities would not cause significant environmental effects.
Stormwater from the project site would be directed through internal drainage infrastructure (e.g., manholes, drainage basins, and drainage lines) towards proposed drainage infrastructure located along North Armstrong Avenue and along the future extension of East McKinley Avenue . Stormwater from the project site would then be redirected towards Ponding Basin BS, located southwest of the project site. Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the FMFCD Master Plan would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage systems.
The project would not result in the construction of new drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
The Project Applicant would be required to pay drainage fees to the FMFCD to address impacts to storm drainage infrastructure resulting from the proposed project.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities would supply water to the project site.
Based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the water supplies under normal conditions for the City from 2025 (329,030 Acre Feet (AF)/year) to 2045 (357,330 89 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand (i.e., 136,504 AF by 2025 and 167,947 AF by 2045) for each normal year respectively.42
During a single dry year, water supplies for the City from 2025 (188,852 AF/year) to 2045 (211,158 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand for each year (i.e., 136,504 AF by 2025 and 167,947 AF by 2045) respectively.
After a 5-year dry period, water supplies for the City from 2025 (315,000 AF/year) to 2045 (340,000 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand for each year (i.e., 136,504 AF by 2025 and 167,947 AF by 2045) respectively.
After submitting a GPA and r ezone application and comply ing with all associated requirements and fees related to the GPA and r ezone progress, the proposed project would be consistent with growth under the City’s General Plan and would be accounted for in the City’s UWMP projections. Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Fresno through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Water and Wastewater Management Divisions. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. They are the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The RWRF currently has a capacity of 87 million gallons per day (mgd).
43 The North Fresno Facility has a capacity of 1.07 mgd.44 The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner which is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.
The Project Applicant would need to contact the Department of Public Utilities to determine service requirements. This impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
42 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf (accessed July 25, 2023). 43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
90 Garbage disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off ‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e. American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐ AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.
Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill (City Of Clovis Landfill 10 -AA-0004) with a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047.
45,46
According to the CalEEMod Analysis prepared for the project, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 86.78 tons of solid waste per year, or approximately
0.24 tons per day. Given the available capacity at the landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed p roject would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste management policies and recommendations from the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. The proposed project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to recreation, and no mitigation is required.
45 CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352 (accessed April 19, 2022). 46 CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. City Of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4529?siteID=347 (accessed April 19, 2022). 91 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wldfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would consist of a 326-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, a private pool, a park area, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. The project site is 92 bounded by residential developments to the north, rural residential uses to the east, rural residential and agricultural uses to the south, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the west.
The proposed project would construct an extension of McKinley Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation around the project site. Although construction of the roadway extensions would affect circulation of vehicles along intersecting roadways near the construction site, such as North Armstrong Avenue, these impacts would be temporary and would not substantially or permanently impair emergency evacuation in the City of Fresno.
Therefore, would not substantially impair any nearby roadways that may serve as emergency evacuation routes or interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the City of Fresno or an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The project site is located in an area mapped by CAL FIRE as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). and is not located within a VHFHSZ.
47 The project site would comply with City and County
fire safety regulations for project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and potentially expose project occupants to wildfires. The impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project site is located in an LRA Unzoned area, and is not located within a VHFHSZ.
Although the proposed project may require the installation of infrastructure to serve the site, the installation of this infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk in the project vicinity. The installation of wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to serve the project site would comply with design and construction requirements of the City and FMFCD. The project applicant would also pay for applicable impact fees and connection fees for utilities that would serve the proj ect site. Compliance with utility installation requirements of the
47 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fresno County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/ (accessed April 2023).
93 City and utility providers would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As discussed above, the project is not located within a VHFHSZ. The project site is also located on a relatively flat area and is not adjacent to any hills. In general, the potential for land sliding or slope failure in the City is very low, and the project site would not be susceptible to landslides. The project site is also not located on a flood hazard zone and would not be susceptible to flooding due to post-fire drainage changes. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire risks, and the impact would be less than significant. This section will not be included in the EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to wildfires, and no mitigation is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
94 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site does not provide suitable habitat for special -status animal species.
Common wildlife species that are adapted to urban environments are expected to continue to use the project site and vicinity. The project site is not occupied by, or suit ed for, any special-status species. As a result, the proposed project would not have direct or indirect adverse effects on special -status plants or wildlife. The project site is not in an area where there are important examples of California history or prehistory. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, the proposed project would not result in impacts to previously undiscovered resources. As a result, a less-than- significant impact with mitigation would occur.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past 95 projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable due to the site- specific nature of the potential impacts. The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of Aesthetics , Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources. These impacts would primarily be related to construction-period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics.
For the topics of Biological Resources , Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife, the proposed project would have no impacts or less - than-significant impacts, and therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics.
The proposed project could potentially contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts for the topics of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation. The EIR will further analyze the proposed project’s contribution to potentially cumulative impacts with these topics.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could directly or indirectly impacts human beings has been evaluated in this Initial Study. The project could potentially have significant environmental effects that could adversely impact human beings and the environment . The project will require an EIR to analyze potentially significant impacts.
Environmental Assessment Application No. T-6360/P22-00387/P22-00388 Attachment:
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 2023
TO: Jeff Harris, Chief Operating Officer
Wilson Homes, Inc.
7550 North Palm, Suite 102
Fresno, CA 93711
FROM: Pamela Reading, Principal, LSA
Nathaly Granda Bustamante, Environmental Planner, LSA
SUBJECT: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) for Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 574-140-04 and 574-140-05 in Fresno, California
Wilson Homes, Inc. (project applicant) is proposing to develop two parcels in the City of Fresno (APNs 574-140-04 and 574-140-05) with 326 single-family homes. In performing due diligence for this project, the project applicant determined that according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), 30.77 acres of the 31.29-acre project site is designated Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model prepared by the California Department of Conservation (refer to Appendix A) was prepared to determine if the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance to a non-agricultural use would constitute a significant impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines.
The information used to prepare the LESA Model was based on information obtained from the California Department of Conservation FMMP, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Geographic information system (GIS) tools.
LESA is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based on specific measurable features. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charged the Resource Agency (in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21095). A LESA analysis is based on the definition of agricultural land contained in CEQA, PRC Section 21060.1:
2 10/18/23 (P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\LESA\TM6360_Memo_PLR.docx) 21060.1 (a) “Agricultural land” means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmlands, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria as modified for California.
21060.1 (b) In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specific in subdivision (a), “agricultural land” means land that meets the requirement of “prime agricultural land” as defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code [the Williamson Act].
The LESA Model is composed of a Land Evaluation (LE) portion, which measures soil quality, and the Site Assessment (SA) portion, which evaluates other factors that contribute to the site’s agricultural importance (e.g., parcel size and on-farm investments). A Final LESA Score of 0 to 39 points is not considered significant. A final score between 40 to 59 points is considered significant only if the LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. A final score between 60 to 79 points is considered significant unless either the LE or SA subscores is less than 20 points. A final score between 80 to 100 points is considered significant. The proposed project achieved a Final LESA Score of 68.72 points, with an LE subscore of 49.97 points and a SA subscore of 18.72 points.
Because the SA subscore was below 20 points, the the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA.
Attachment: A: LESA Model
B: Figures
L AND E VALUATION AND S ITE A SSESSMENT M ODEL (LESA M ODEL ) O CTOBER 2023
A SSESSOR ' S P ARCEL N UMBER S (APN S )
574- 140- 04 AND 574- 140- 05
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\LESA\TM6360_Memo_PLR.docx (10/18/23)
ATTACHMENT A
LESA MODEL
1-A
Appendix A. California Agricultural LESA Worksheets
Calculation of the Land Evaluation (LE) Score
NOTES Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score:
(1) Determine the total acreage of the project.
(2) Determine the soil types within the project area and enter them in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet provided on page 2-A.
(3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil type in Column C. (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. (6) From the LCC Scoring Table below, determine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil type and enter it in Column E.
LCC Scoring Table
LCC
Class
I IIe IIs,w IIIe IIIs,w IVe IVs,w V VI VII VIII
Points 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
(7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F.
(8) Sum the LCC scores in Column F.
(9) Enter the LCC score in box <1> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
Part 2. Storie Index Score:
(1) Determine the Storie Index rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G) and enter the scores in Column H.
(3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box <2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
The Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Project is a 31.29 acre project site located in
the City of Fresno. Three soil types have been
identified on the project site: Greenfield sandy
loam (GtA), 0 to 3 percent slopes, Hanford fine
sandy loam (Hm), and Ramona loam (Rc).
(refer to Figure 1: Soils, at the end of the
worksheets). The acreage of each soil type is
divided by the total project acreage (31.29
acres) to determine the proportion of each soil
type on the project site. The Land Capability
Classification (LCC) and Storie Index for the
on-site soils were found on the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web
Soil Survey.
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil
Survey, the LCCs for the three soil types are
as follows: I for GtA, Hm, and Rc for irrigated
land; and IVc for GtA, Hm, and Rc for
nonirrigated land. The LCC value for irrigated
land was used for each soil type, as the project
site is irrigated through Fresno Irrigation District
(FID) water deliveries and groundwater.
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil
Survey, Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes, has a Storie Index of 93; Hanford fine
sandy loam has a Storie Index of 100; and
Ramona loam has a Storie Index of 100.
2-A
Land Evaluation Worksheet Site Assessment Worksheet 1.
Land Capability Classification
(LCC)
Project Size Score
and Storie Index Scores
A B C D E F G H I J K
Soil Map Project Proportion
of
LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie
Index
LCC Class LCC
Class
LCC
Class
Unit Acres Project Area Rating Score Index Score I - II III IV - VIII (Must Sum LCC Storie Index
Totals to 1.0) Total
Score
Total Score Total Acres
Project Size
Scores
Highest Project
Size Score
GtA
Hm
Rc
0.5 1.96
28.83 31.29
0.016
0.063
0.921
I
I
I
100
100
100
1.6 6.3
92.1 93
100
100
1.488
6.3 92.1
100 99.888
0.5 1.96
28.83 31.29
50 50
3-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) Score NOTES
Part 1. Project Size Score:.
(1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 1 provided on page 2-A, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column - I, J or K - that corresponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it). (2) Sum Column I to determine the total amount of class I and II soils on the project site. (3) Sum Column J to determine the total amount of class III soils on the project site. (4) Sum Column K to determine the total amount of class IV and lower soils on the project site. (5) Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Project Size Scoring Table below and determine which group receives the highest score.
Project Size Scoring Table
Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower
Acreage Points Acreage Po ints Acreage Points
>80 100 >160 100 >320 100
60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80
40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60
20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40
10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20
10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0
10-19 10
10< 0
(6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box <3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
Column I - 31.29 acres of Class I soils
corresponds to a score of 50 points.
4-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score:
NOTES
(1) Determine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is dryland agricultural activity as well.
(2) Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is available in each portion. Enter this information in Column B of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability.
(3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion identified, and enter this information in Column C.
(4) Using the Water Resources Availability Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non-drought years, and whether physical or economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into Column D.
(5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportion of the project area it represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E. (6) Sum the scores for all portions to determine the project’s total Water Resources Availability Score (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
The 31.29 project site is currently irrigated as
follows: 60 percent of the site is irrigated via
FID surface water deliveries, and
approximately 40 percent with groundwater.
The property owner has indicated that
irrigation of the site has been physically
feasible during regular rainfall years; however,
increasing utility costs for water supply have
placed economic restrictions on irrigation of
the project site.
Additionally, the property owner has indicated
that due to the installation of a Municipal water
well in the vicinity of the property, the local
aquifer has been heavily impacted, a condition
that is exacerbated during drought years. As
such, during drought years, physical
restrictions impede reliable groundwater
extraction for irrigation of the project site.
Similarly, during drought years, FID surface
water deliveries are greatly reduced, making
this source unreliable for irrigation.
Furthermore, increasing utility costs for water
supply also present economic restrictions for
irrigation of the property during drought years.
As such, a Water Availability Score of 45
points was assigned to the project site.
5-A
Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability
A B C D E
Water
Weighted
Project Water Proportion of Availability Availability
Portion Source Project Area Score Score
(C x D)
1 2
3 4
5 6
(Must Sum Total Water
to 1.0) Resource
Score
Groundwater
FID Surface Water Delivery 0.6
0.4 45
45 27
18 45
6-A
Water Resource Availability
Scoring Table
Non-Drought Years Drought Years
WATER
RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS
Option RESOURCE
Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Pr oduction Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ?
1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100
2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95
3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90
4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85
5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80
6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75
7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65
8 YES NO NO NO -- -- -- -- 50
9 YES NO YES NO -- -- -- -- 45
10 YES YES NO NO -- -- -- -- 35
11 YES YES YES NO -- -- -- -- 30
12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and non-drought years
13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 20 production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0
7-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score:
NOTES
(1) Calculate the
project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI) as follows:
(a) a rectangle is drawn around the project such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely encompass the project area.
(b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one quarter mile on all sides beyond the first rectangle.
(c) The ZOI includes all parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself.
(2) Sum the area of all parcels to determine the total acreage of the ZOI. (3) Determine which parcels are in agricultural use and sum the areas of these parcels (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step (3) by the total area of the ZOI found in step (2) to determine the percent of the ZOI that is in agricultural use.
(5) Determine the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table below.
Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table
Percent of ZOI
in
Surrounding
Agricultural
Agriculture Land Score
90-100 100
80-89 90
75-79 80
70-74 70
65-69 60
60-64 50
55-59 40
50-54 30
45-49 20
40-44 10
<40 0
(5) Enter the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score in box <5> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
As shown in Figure 2, the total acreage
of the Zone of Influence (ZOI) is 304.76
acres, and 152.14 acres of the ZOI are
under agricultural production (based on
the California Department of
Conservation Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program). Approximately 50
percent of the ZOI is under agricultural
production. Therefore, the Surrounding
Agricultural Land Score equates to 30
points.
8-A
Site Assessment Worksheet 3.
Surrounding Agricultural Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land
A B C D E F G
Zone of Influence
Surrounding
Total Acres Acres in Acres of Percent in Percent Surrounding Protected Agriculture Protected Agriculture P rotected Agricultural Resource Resource Resource Land Land Score Land Score
Land (A/B) (A/C) (From Table) (From Table)
304.76 152.14 49.90 0 30 0
9-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score:
NOTES
The Protected Resource Lands
scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surrounding agricultural and protected lands calculations.
(1) Use the total area of the ZOI calculated in Part 3. for the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California Agricultural LESA Guidelines.
(3) Divide the area that is determined to be protected in Step (2) by the total acreage of the ZOI to determine the percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table below.
Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table
Percent of ZOI Protected Resource
Protected Land Score
90-100 100
80-89 90
75-79 80
70-74 70
65-69 60
60-64 50
55-59 40
50-54 30
45-49 20
40-44 10
<40 0
(5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.
As shown in Figure 3, the total acreage
of the ZOI is 304.76 acres. No portion of
the ZOI consists of protected resource
lands, defined as Williamson Act
contracted lands; publicly owned lands
maintained as park, forest, or watershed
resources; and lands with agricultural,
wildlife habitat, open space, or other
natural resource easements that restrict
the conversion of such land to urban or
industrial uses. As such, the
Surrounding Protected Resource Score
equates to 0 points.
10-A
Final LESA Score Sheet
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Final LESA Score:
NOTES
(1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column.
(2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to determine the Final LESA Score for the project.
Factor
Scores
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Factor
Scores
LE Factors
Land Capability
Classification
<1> 0.25
Storie
Index
<2> 0.25
LE
Subtotal
0.50 SA Factors
Project
Size
<3> 0.15
Water Resource
Availability
<4> 0.15
Surrounding
Agricultural Land
<5> 0.15
Protected
Resource Land
<6> 0.05
SA
Subtotal
0.50 Final LESA
Score
For further information on
the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual.
100
99.888
50 45
30 0
25 24.97
49.97 7.5
6.75 4.5
0 18.75
68.72 The component LE and SA factors have been
entered into the Final LESA Score Sheet.
The LE factor scores are multiplied by the factor
weights to determine the weighted score for
each. The weighted LE factor scores are
summed to determine the LE portion of the Final
LESA score.
The SA factor scores are multiplied by the factor
weights to determine the weighted score for
each. The weighted SA factor scores are
summed to determine the SA portion of the Final
LESA score.
The LE and SA subtotals are summed to
determine the Final LESA Score. The Final
LESA Score for the proposed project is 68.72
points. A final score between 60 to 79 points is
considered significant unless either the LE or SA
subscores is less than 20 points. While the LE
subtotal (49.97 points) is greater than 20 points,
the SA subtotal (18.75 points) is below 20 points.
Therefore, the LESA Model concludes that the
conversion of the agricultural land (Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance) on
the project site to a non-agricultural use would
constitute a less-than-significant impact.
L AND E VALUATION AND S ITE A SSESSMENT M ODEL (LESA M ODEL ) O CTOBER 2023
A SSESSOR ' S P ARCEL N UMBER S (APN S )
574- 140- 04 AND 574- 140- 05
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\LESA\TM6360_Memo_PLR.docx (10/18/23)
ATTACHMENT B
FIGURES
E Cambridge Ave
N Armstrong Ave
Hm
GtA
Rc
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023), USDA NRCS (2023)
J:\HAA2103\GIS\Pro\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project.aprx (10/16/2023) FIGURE 1
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project
Soils
0 100 200
FEET
Project Location (31.29 acres)
Soils
GtA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (0.50 acres) Hm - Hanford fine sandy loam (1.96 acres)
Rc - Ramona loam (28.83 acres)
M i l l a r d
E Yale Ave
E Princeton Ave
E Cambridge Ave
Laverne Ave
E
Car m a lee
Ln
E Olive Ave
E C l i n t o n A v e
E F l o r a d o r a A v e
N Te m p e r a n c e A v eN A r m s t r o n g A v e F o w l e r A v e
E Cambridge Ave
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023), USDA NRCS (2023)
J:\HAA2103\GIS\Pro\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project.aprx (10/16/2023) FIGURE 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project
Zone of Influence Agricultural Lands
0 400 800
FEET
Project Location (31.29 acres)
Zone of Influence (304.76 acres)
Project Location Agricultural Land
Farmland of Local Importance (0.23 acres, 0.75%)
Prime Farmland (30.39 acres, 97.58%)
Rural Residential Land (0.52 acres, 1.67%)
Zone of Influence Agricultural Land
Urban and Built-Up Land (16.86 acres, 5.53%)
Farmland of Local Importance (51.92 acres, 17.04%)
Prime Farmland (100.22 acres, 32.89%)
Rural Residential Land (113.35 acres, 37.19%)
Vacant or Disturbed Land (22.39 acres, 7.35%)
M i l l a r d
E Yale Ave
E Princeton Ave
E Cambridge Ave
Laverne Ave
E
Car m a lee
Ln
E Olive Ave
E C l i n t o n A v e
E F l o r a d o r a A v e
N Te m p e r a n c e A v eN A r m s t r o n g A v e F o w l e r A v e
E Cambridge Ave
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023), USDA NRCS (2023)
J:\HAA2103\GIS\Pro\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project.aprx (10/16/2023) FIGURE 3
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Project
Zone of Influence Protected Lands
0 400 800
FEET
Project Location (31.29 acres)
Zone of Influence (304.76 acres)
L AND E VALUATION AND S ITE A SSESSMENT M ODEL (LESA M ODEL ) O CTOBER 2023
A SSESSOR ' S P ARCEL N UMBER S (APN S )
574- 140- 04 AND 574- 140- 05
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P:\HAA2103-TM 6360\PRODUCTS\LESA\TM6360_Memo_PLR.docx (10/18/23) This page intentionally left blank
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
APPENDIX C
CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 1 / 86
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 2 / 86
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 3 / 86
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 4 / 86
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 5 / 86
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 6 / 86
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 7 / 86
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 8 / 86
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 9 / 86
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360
Construction Start Date 4/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 25.4
Location 36.765565101692715, -119.67168128593465
County Fresno
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2417
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 10 / 86
Single Family
Housing
326 Dwelling Unit 26.5 770,990 3,818,391 — 0.00 —
City Park 0.90 Acre 0.90 0.00 37,809 37,809 — —
Recreational
Swimming Pool
15.2 1000sqft 0.30 15,207 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 157 1000sqft 3.60 0.00 45,302 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-6 Use Diesel Particulate Filters
Energy E-1 Buildings Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy E-2 Require Energy Efficient Appliances
Energy E-22* Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verication of Energy Savings
Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.24 54.2 29.8 29.0 0.09 0.99 8.59 9.53 0.91 4.05 4.89 — 12,598 12,598 0.36 1.36 20.4 13,031 Mit. 1.24 54.2 29.8 29.0 0.09 0.28 8.59 8.73 0.27 4.05 4.18 — 12,598 12,598 0.36 1.36 20.4 13,031 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 11 / 86
%
Reduced
— — — — — 72% — 8% 71% — 15% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.06 54.2 14.8 21.4 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,611 3,611 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,652 Mit. 1.06 54.2 14.8 21.4 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,611 3,611 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,652 %
Reduced
— — — — — 84% — 38% 84% — 63% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.73 9.76 12.0 15.1 0.03 0.46 2.44 2.89 0.42 1.04 1.44 — 4,040 4,040 0.13 0.33 2.41 4,144 Mit. 0.73 9.76 12.0 15.1 0.03 0.10 2.44 2.54 0.09 1.04 1.13 — 4,040 4,040 0.13 0.33 2.41 4,144 %
Reduced
— — — — — 79% — 12% 78% — 22% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.13 1.78 2.19 2.76 0.01 0.08 0.45 0.53 0.08 0.19 0.26 — 669 669 0.02 0.05 0.40 686 Mit. 0.13 1.78 2.19 2.76 0.01 0.02 0.45 0.46 0.02 0.19 0.21 — 669 669 0.02 0.05 0.40 686 %
Reduced
— — — — — 79% — 12% 78% — 22% — — — — — — —
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.24 1.08 29.8 29.0 0.09 0.99 8.59 9.53 0.91 4.05 4.89 — 12,598 12,598 0.36 1.36 20.4 13,031 2025 1.09 1.04 14.6 21.9 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,672 3,672 0.13 0.12 4.08 3,716 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 12 / 86
2026 1.05 1.00 14.5 21.6 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,647 3,647 0.13 0.12 3.68 3,691 2027 0.15 54.2 1.13 1.75 < 0.005 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.09 — 277 277 0.01 0.01 0.46 280 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.06 1.00 14.8 21.4 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,611 3,611 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,652 2025 1.02 0.97 14.7 21.1 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,589 3,589 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,629 2026 0.97 54.2 14.7 20.8 0.03 0.64 0.80 1.44 0.59 0.19 0.78 — 3,566 3,566 0.14 0.12 0.10 3,606 2027 0.14 54.2 1.14 1.60 < 0.005 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.09 — 261 261 0.01 0.01 0.01 264 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.60 0.55 12.0 13.2 0.03 0.44 2.44 2.89 0.41 1.04 1.44 — 4,040 4,040 0.13 0.33 2.41 4,144 2025 0.73 0.70 10.5 15.1 0.02 0.46 0.56 1.02 0.42 0.14 0.56 — 2,580 2,580 0.10 0.09 1.26 2,610 2026 0.59 3.98 9.04 12.8 0.02 0.40 0.44 0.84 0.37 0.11 0.47 — 2,156 2,156 0.08 0.07 0.88 2,179 2027 0.02 9.76 0.21 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 48.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.11 0.10 2.19 2.40 0.01 0.08 0.45 0.53 0.07 0.19 0.26 — 669 669 0.02 0.05 0.40 686 2025 0.13 0.13 1.91 2.76 < 0.005 0.08 0.10 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.10 — 427 427 0.02 0.01 0.21 432 2026 0.11 0.73 1.65 2.33 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.09 — 357 357 0.01 0.01 0.15 361 2027 < 0.005 1.78 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.92 7.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.00
2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.24 1.08 29.8 29.0 0.09 0.28 8.59 8.73 0.27 4.05 4.18 — 12,598 12,598 0.36 1.36 20.4 13,031 2025 1.09 1.04 14.6 21.9 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,672 3,672 0.13 0.12 4.08 3,716 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 13 / 86
2026 1.05 1.00 14.5 21.6 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,647 3,647 0.13 0.12 3.68 3,691 2027 0.15 54.2 1.13 1.75 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 277 277 0.01 0.01 0.46 280 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.06 1.00 14.8 21.4 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,611 3,611 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,652 2025 1.02 0.97 14.7 21.1 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,589 3,589 0.14 0.12 0.11 3,629 2026 0.97 54.2 14.7 20.8 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.09 0.19 0.29 — 3,566 3,566 0.14 0.12 0.10 3,606 2027 0.14 54.2 1.14 1.60 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 261 261 0.01 0.01 0.01 264 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.60 0.55 12.0 13.2 0.03 0.10 2.44 2.54 0.09 1.04 1.13 — 4,040 4,040 0.13 0.33 2.41 4,144 2025 0.73 0.70 10.5 15.1 0.02 0.07 0.56 0.63 0.07 0.14 0.20 — 2,580 2,580 0.10 0.09 1.26 2,610 2026 0.59 3.98 9.04 12.8 0.02 0.06 0.44 0.50 0.06 0.11 0.16 — 2,156 2,156 0.08 0.07 0.88 2,179 2027 0.02 9.76 0.21 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 48.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.11 0.10 2.19 2.40 0.01 0.02 0.45 0.46 0.02 0.19 0.21 — 669 669 0.02 0.05 0.40 686 2025 0.13 0.13 1.91 2.76 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.04 — 427 427 0.02 0.01 0.21 432 2026 0.11 0.73 1.65 2.33 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 357 357 0.01 0.01 0.15 361 2027 < 0.005 1.78 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.92 7.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.00
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.7 28.8 10.9 70.4 0.18 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 73.7 21,868 21,942 8.52 0.94 56.8 22,491 Mit. 11.7 28.8 10.9 70.4 0.18 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 70.0 21,762 21,832 8.12 0.93 56.8 22,368 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 14 / 86
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 5% < 0.5% 1% 5% 1% — 1%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.6 27.6 12.1 62.8 0.17 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 73.7 20,508 20,582 8.64 1.00 6.92 21,101 Mit. 10.6 27.6 12.1 62.8 0.17 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 70.0 20,402 20,472 8.25 0.98 6.92 20,978 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% — 1%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.4 27.6 9.43 61.1 0.16 0.17 13.2 13.4 0.16 3.35 3.52 73.7 18,230 18,304 8.53 0.96 27.7 18,831 Mit. 10.4 27.6 9.43 61.1 0.16 0.17 13.2 13.4 0.16 3.35 3.52 70.0 18,124 18,194 8.13 0.95 27.7 18,708 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% — 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.90 5.04 1.72 11.2 0.03 0.03 2.41 2.44 0.03 0.61 0.64 12.2 3,018 3,030 1.41 0.16 4.59 3,118 Mit. 1.90 5.04 1.72 11.2 0.03 0.03 2.41 2.44 0.03 0.61 0.64 11.6 3,001 3,012 1.35 0.16 4.59 3,097 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% — 1%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 Area 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 15 / 86
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,777 1,777 0.29 0.03 — 1,795 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 120 147 2.78 0.07 — 236 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 11.7 28.8 10.9 70.4 0.18 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 73.7 21,868 21,942 8.52 0.94 56.8 22,491 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 Area 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,777 1,777 0.29 0.03 — 1,795 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 120 147 2.78 0.07 — 236 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 10.6 27.6 12.1 62.8 0.17 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 73.7 20,508 20,582 8.64 1.00 6.92 21,101 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.4 9.70 8.82 60.9 0.15 0.12 13.2 13.3 0.12 3.35 3.47 — 15,562 15,562 0.77 0.85 22.1 15,858 Area 0.07 17.9 0.61 0.26 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 771 771 0.01 < 0.005 — 772 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,777 1,777 0.29 0.03 — 1,795 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 120 147 2.78 0.07 — 236 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 10.4 27.6 9.43 61.1 0.16 0.17 13.2 13.4 0.16 3.35 3.52 73.7 18,230 18,304 8.53 0.96 27.7 18,831 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.89 1.77 1.61 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.41 2.43 0.02 0.61 0.63 — 2,576 2,576 0.13 0.14 3.66 2,626 Area 0.01 3.27 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 294 294 0.05 0.01 — 297 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.45 19.9 24.3 0.46 0.01 — 39.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 16 / 86
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.74 0.00 7.74 0.77 0.00 — 27.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total 1.90 5.04 1.72 11.2 0.03 0.03 2.41 2.44 0.03 0.61 0.64 12.2 3,018 3,030 1.41 0.16 4.59 3,118
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 Area 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,719 1,719 0.28 0.03 — 1,736 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 72.4 95.6 2.39 0.06 — 173 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 11.7 28.8 10.9 70.4 0.18 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 70.0 21,762 21,832 8.12 0.93 56.8 22,368 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 Area 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,719 1,719 0.28 0.03 — 1,736 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 72.4 95.6 2.39 0.06 — 173 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 10.6 27.6 12.1 62.8 0.17 0.34 13.4 13.8 0.33 3.41 3.74 70.0 20,402 20,472 8.25 0.98 6.92 20,978 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 17 / 86
Mobile 10.4 9.70 8.82 60.9 0.15 0.12 13.2 13.3 0.12 3.35 3.47 — 15,562 15,562 0.77 0.85 22.1 15,858 Area 0.07 17.9 0.61 0.26 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 771 771 0.01 < 0.005 — 772 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,719 1,719 0.28 0.03 — 1,736 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 72.4 95.6 2.39 0.06 — 173 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Total 10.4 27.6 9.43 61.1 0.16 0.17 13.2 13.4 0.16 3.35 3.52 70.0 18,124 18,194 8.13 0.95 27.7 18,708 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.89 1.77 1.61 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.41 2.43 0.02 0.61 0.63 — 2,576 2,576 0.13 0.14 3.66 2,626 Area 0.01 3.27 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 285 285 0.05 0.01 — 287 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 12.0 15.8 0.40 0.01 — 28.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.74 0.00 7.74 0.77 0.00 — 27.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total 1.90 5.04 1.72 11.2 0.03 0.03 2.41 2.44 0.03 0.61 0.64 11.6 3,001 3,012 1.35 0.16 4.59 3,097
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.90 24.0 28.3 0.05 0.94 — 0.94 0.84 — 0.84 — 5,293 5,293 0.21 0.04 — 5,311 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 18 / 86
———————4.034.03—8.498.49——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.06 1.65 1.94 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 363 363 0.01 < 0.005 — 364 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.58 0.58 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.30 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.0 60.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 19 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.82 6.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.13 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.90 0.90 24.0 28.3 0.05 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 5,293 5,293 0.21 0.04 — 5,311 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 8.49 8.49 — 4.03 4.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 20 / 86
——————————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.06 1.65 1.94 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 363 363 0.01 < 0.005 — 364 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.58 0.58 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.30 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 60.0 60.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.82 6.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 21 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.13 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.77 0.77 19.7 23.5 0.04 0.84 — 0.84 0.76 — 0.76 — 4,188 4,188 0.17 0.03 — 4,202 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.34 5.34 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.17 4.33 5.14 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 918 918 0.04 0.01 — 921 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.17 1.17 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 22 / 86
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.79 0.94 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.38 0.20 10.1 2.39 0.05 0.15 2.16 2.31 0.15 0.59 0.74 — 8,302 8,302 0.18 1.32 20.0 8,718 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 0.04 2.30 0.53 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,820 1,820 0.04 0.29 1.88 1,909 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 3.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.01 0.05 0.31 316 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 23 / 86
3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.77 0.77 19.7 23.5 0.04 0.13 — 0.13 0.11 — 0.11 — 4,188 4,188 0.17 0.03 — 4,202 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.34 5.34 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.17 0.17 4.33 5.14 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 918 918 0.04 0.01 — 921 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.17 1.17 — 0.58 0.58 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.79 0.94 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 24 / 86
———————0.110.11—0.210.21——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.38 0.20 10.1 2.39 0.05 0.15 2.16 2.31 0.15 0.59 0.74 — 8,302 8,302 0.18 1.32 20.0 8,718 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 0.04 2.30 0.53 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.03 0.13 0.16 — 1,820 1,820 0.04 0.29 1.88 1,909 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 3.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.01 0.05 0.31 316
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 25 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,430 2,430 0.10 0.02 — 2,438 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,430 2,430 0.10 0.02 — 2,438 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.12 3.39 4.26 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 609 609 0.02 < 0.005 — 611 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.62 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 101 101 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 101 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.60 0.57 0.31 5.02 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 767 767 0.05 0.03 3.06 780 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.82 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 500 500 0.01 0.07 1.28 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 26 / 86
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.53 0.49 0.39 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 680 680 0.03 0.03 0.08 690 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.87 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 501 501 0.01 0.07 0.03 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.08 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 176 176 0.01 0.01 0.33 179 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 125 125 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 131 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.2 29.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 29.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.8 20.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,430 2,430 0.10 0.02 — 2,438 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 27 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,430 2,430 0.10 0.02 — 2,438 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.12 3.39 4.26 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 609 609 0.02 < 0.005 — 611 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.62 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 101 101 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 101 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.60 0.57 0.31 5.02 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 767 767 0.05 0.03 3.06 780 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.82 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 500 500 0.01 0.07 1.28 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.53 0.49 0.39 4.07 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 680 680 0.03 0.03 0.08 690 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.87 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 501 501 0.01 0.07 0.03 523 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.08 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 176 176 0.01 0.01 0.33 179 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 125 125 < 0.005 0.02 0.14 131 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 28 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.2 29.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 29.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.8 20.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.35 0.35 9.66 12.1 0.02 0.45 — 0.45 0.42 — 0.42 — 1,736 1,736 0.07 0.01 — 1,742 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 29 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.06 1.76 2.21 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 287 287 0.01 < 0.005 — 288 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.53 0.28 4.61 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 750 750 0.02 0.03 2.81 763 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.79 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 491 491 0.01 0.07 1.28 514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.50 0.46 0.34 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 666 666 0.03 0.03 0.07 676 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.84 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 492 492 0.01 0.07 0.03 514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.36 0.34 0.22 2.71 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 493 493 0.02 0.02 0.87 501 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 351 351 0.01 0.05 0.39 367 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.6 81.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 82.9 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.1 58.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 60.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 30 / 86
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.35 0.35 9.66 12.1 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,736 1,736 0.07 0.01 — 1,742 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.06 1.76 2.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 287 287 0.01 < 0.005 — 288 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.53 0.28 4.61 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 750 750 0.02 0.03 2.81 763 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.79 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 491 491 0.01 0.07 1.28 514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 31 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.50 0.46 0.34 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 666 666 0.03 0.03 0.07 676 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.84 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 492 492 0.01 0.07 0.03 514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.36 0.34 0.22 2.71 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 493 493 0.02 0.02 0.87 501 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 351 351 0.01 0.05 0.39 367 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.6 81.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 82.9 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.1 58.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 60.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 32 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.26 0.26 7.28 9.14 0.01 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,308 1,308 0.05 0.01 — 1,313 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.33 1.67 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 217 217 0.01 < 0.005 — 217 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.49 0.26 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 735 735 0.02 0.03 2.55 747 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.76 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 482 482 0.01 0.07 1.13 505 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.45 0.44 0.31 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 652 652 0.03 0.03 0.07 662 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.82 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 483 483 0.01 0.07 0.03 505 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.24 0.15 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 364 364 0.01 0.02 0.59 370 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.43 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.26 272 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 33 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 60.2 60.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 61.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.0 43.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 45.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.48 0.48 13.5 17.0 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,431 2,431 0.10 0.02 — 2,439 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.26 0.26 7.28 9.14 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,308 1,308 0.05 0.01 — 1,313 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 34 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.33 1.67 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 217 217 0.01 < 0.005 — 217 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.49 0.26 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 735 735 0.02 0.03 2.55 747 Vendor 0.04 0.03 0.76 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 482 482 0.01 0.07 1.13 505 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.45 0.44 0.31 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 652 652 0.03 0.03 0.07 662 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.82 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 483 483 0.01 0.07 0.03 505 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.24 0.15 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 364 364 0.01 0.02 0.59 370 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.43 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.26 272 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 60.2 60.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 61.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.0 43.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 45.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 35 / 86
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.37 0.37 10.1 12.6 0.02 0.45 — 0.45 0.41 — 0.41 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Paving — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 1.11 1.38 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 197 197 0.01 < 0.005 — 198 Paving — 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.8 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.7 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 36 / 86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.73 1.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.37 0.37 10.1 12.6 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Paving — 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 37 / 86
198—< 0.0050.01197197—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0051.381.110.040.04Off-Road Equipment
Paving — 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.8 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.73 1.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 38 / 86
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 54.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.36 8.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.39 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.39 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 39 / 86
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 0.01 0.01 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.46 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 40 / 86
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 54.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.36 8.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.39 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.39 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 0.01 0.01 132 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 41 / 86
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.46 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 54.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 42 / 86
Architect
Coatings
— 54.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 9.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.98 3.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.99 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.78 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 144 144 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 146 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 0.01 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 43 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 54.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 44 / 86
————————————————54.1—Architect
ural
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 9.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.98 3.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.99 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.78 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 144 144 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 146 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 0.01 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 45 / 86
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 24.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 46 / 86
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
1.89 1.77 1.61 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.41 2.43 0.02 0.61 0.63 — 2,576 2,576 0.13 0.14 3.66 2,626 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.89 1.77 1.61 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.41 2.43 0.02 0.61 0.63 — 2,576 2,576 0.13 0.14 3.66 2,626
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 47 / 86
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 11.4 10.8 8.23 69.2 0.16 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 16,539 16,539 0.72 0.83 51.2 16,854 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10.2 9.54 9.37 61.6 0.15 0.12 13.4 13.6 0.12 3.41 3.52 — 15,178 15,178 0.84 0.89 1.33 15,465 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 48 / 86
2,6263.660.140.132,5762,576—0.630.610.022.432.410.020.0311.11.611.771.89Single Family
Housing
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.89 1.77 1.61 11.1 0.03 0.02 2.41 2.43 0.02 0.61 0.63 — 2,576 2,576 0.13 0.14 3.66 2,626
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,703 1,703 0.28 0.03 — 1,720
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.6 74.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,777 1,777 0.29 0.03 — 1,795 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 49 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,703 1,703 0.28 0.03 — 1,720
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.6 74.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,777 1,777 0.29 0.03 — 1,795 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 282 282 0.05 0.01 — 285
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 294 294 0.05 0.01 — 297
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 50 / 86
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,644 1,644 0.27 0.03 — 1,660
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.6 74.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,719 1,719 0.28 0.03 — 1,736 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,644 1,644 0.27 0.03 — 1,660
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.6 74.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,719 1,719 0.28 0.03 — 1,736 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 272 272 0.04 0.01 — 275
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 51 / 86
Recreati
Swimming
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 285 285 0.05 0.01 — 287
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 52 / 86
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Recreati onal
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 53 / 86
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Recreati onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 54 / 86
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.32 0.16 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Consum
er
Products
— 16.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.32 0.16 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Consum
er
Products
— 16.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 55 / 86
————————————————3.02—Consum
er
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 3.27 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.32 0.16 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Consum
er
Products
— 16.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.32 0.16 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Consum
er
Products
— 16.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.32 18.0 2.70 1.15 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 0.00 3,432 3,432 0.06 0.01 — 3,436 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 56 / 86
Hearths 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128 Consum
er
Products
— 3.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 3.27 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 128
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.2 116 141 2.60 0.06 — 225
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.56 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.58 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.72 1.98 3.70 0.18 < 0.005 — 9.39 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 120 147 2.78 0.07 — 236 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 57 / 86
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.2 116 141 2.60 0.06 — 225
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.56 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.58 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.72 1.98 3.70 0.18 < 0.005 — 9.39 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.9 120 147 2.78 0.07 — 236 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.17 19.1 23.3 0.43 0.01 — 37.2
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.26 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.26 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.33 0.61 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.55 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.45 19.9 24.3 0.46 0.01 — 39.2
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 58 / 86
163—0.052.2291.970.421.5———————————Single
Family
Housing
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 -0.36 -0.36 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -0.37 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.72 1.98 3.70 0.18 < 0.005 — 9.39 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 72.4 95.6 2.39 0.06 — 173 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 21.5 70.4 91.9 2.22 0.05 — 163
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 -0.36 -0.36 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -0.37 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.72 1.98 3.70 0.18 < 0.005 — 9.39 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 72.4 95.6 2.39 0.06 — 173 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.56 11.7 15.2 0.37 0.01 — 27.1
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 -0.06 -0.06 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -0.06 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 59 / 86
1.55—< 0.0050.030.610.330.29———————————Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.85 12.0 15.8 0.40 0.01 — 28.6
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.15 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 0.00 46.7 4.67 0.00 — 163
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 60 / 86
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Single
Family
Housing
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.15 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 0.00 46.7 4.67 0.00 — 163
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.02 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.73 0.00 7.73 0.77 0.00 — 27.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.74 0.00 7.74 0.77 0.00 — 27.1
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 61 / 86
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Single
Family
Housing
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.15 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 0.00 46.7 4.67 0.00 — 163
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.15 Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 0.00 46.7 4.67 0.00 — 163
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 46.8 0.00 46.8 4.67 0.00 — 164 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.02 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 62 / 86
27.1—0.000.777.730.007.73———————————Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.74 0.00 7.74 0.77 0.00 — 27.1
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.52 5.52
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.52 5.52
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 63 / 86
Recreati
Swimming
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 0.91
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.52 5.52
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 64 / 86
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.52 5.52
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.59 5.59
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 0.91
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 65 / 86
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 66 / 86
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 67 / 86
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 68 / 86
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 69 / 86
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 70 / 86
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 71 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 72 / 86
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2024 5/3/2024 5.00 25.0 — Grading Grading 5/6/2024 8/23/2024 5.00 80.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/26/2024 10/2/2026 5.00 550 — Paving Paving 10/5/2026 11/27/2026 5.00 40.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2026 4/2/2027 5.00 90.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 73 / 86
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 3 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Trenchers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 3 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 74 / 86
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 3.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Trenchers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 116 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 75 / 86
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 124 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 37.3 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 24.7 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 116 20.0 HHDT
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 76 / 86
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 124 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 37.3 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 24.7 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 77 / 86
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,561,255 520,418 0.00 0.00 9,148
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 87.5 0.00 —
Grading 74,500 — 165 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.09
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 3.59 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 3.50 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 78 / 86
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
3,074 3,074 3,074 1,122,076 18,999 18,999 18,999 6,934,713 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational
Swimming Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 79 / 86
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
3,074 3,074 3,074 1,122,076 18,999 18,999 18,999 6,934,713 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational
Swimming Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 163
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 163
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 80 / 86
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 163
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 163
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1561254.75 520,418 0.00 0.00 9,148
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 81 / 86
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 3,046,986 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 133,555 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 2,942,030 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 133,555 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 13,136,496 64,063,828
City Park 0.00 1,153,360
Recreational Swimming Pool 899,390 0.00
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 82 / 86
Parking Lot 0.00 621,870
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 11,222,509 33,823,909
City Park 0.00 -268,933
Recreational Swimming Pool 899,390 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 263,099
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 0.00 —
City Park 0.08 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 86.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 0.00 —
City Park 0.08 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 86.7 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 83 / 86
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 84 / 86
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 85 / 86
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6360 Custom Report, 12/19/2023 86 / 86
Screen Justification
Land Use The total project site is 31.29 acres and would include 326 residential lots and approximately 53,016 square feet of open space, including a 11,777 square-foot park, a 15,207 square-foot pool and recreation area, and a 26,032 square-foot area across East McKinley Avenue that would be deeded to the City of Fresno for open space uses. The proposed project would include approximately 157,367 square feet of parking space.
Construction: Construction Phases Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a period of 36 months, beginning April 2024 and ending April 2027.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction equipment list was provided by the Project Applicant and assumes the use of Tier 3 construction equipment.
Operations: Vehicle Data The proposed project would generate approximately 3,074 average daily trips.
Operations: Hearths No woodstoves.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement The proposed project would have a net import of 74,500 cubic yards of soil.
Operations: Energy Use The proposed project would be all-electric.
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
APPENDIX D
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
Project Location
Receptor Grid
Unmitigated Construction Cancer Risk – Sensitive Receptor
Unmitigated Construction Chronic Hazard Index – Sensitive Receptor
Unmitigated Construction Cancer Risk – Worker Receptor
Unmitigated Construction Chronic Hazard Index – Worker Receptor
Mitigated Construction Cancer Risk – Sensitive Receptor
Mitigated Construction Chronic Hazard Index – Sensitive Receptor
Mitigated Construction Cancer Risk – Worker Receptor
Mitigated Construction Chronic Hazard Index – Worker Receptor
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
APPENDIX E
FRESNO GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE CEQA
PROJECT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
V ESTING T ENTATIVE T RACT M AP N O . 6360
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank