24-1284 CEQA Addendum to the IS MND.pdf — Fresno City Council, October 10, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

Addendum to the Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the South Peach Park Project
(Development Permit Application
No. P21-00726), Fresno,
Fresno County, California
SCH #2021040358
MARCH 2024

PREPARED FOR
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants

ADDENDUM TO THE

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

SOUTH PEACH PARK PROJECT
(DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P21-00726),

FRESNO, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(SCH #2021040358)
Prepared for
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Attn: Brandon Chacon, Projects Administrator
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
3426 Empresa Drive, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 73586-004
March 2024

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
i

CONTENTS
1 Introduction and Summary of Conclusions....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of Addendum .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Summary of Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 2 2 Project Modifications........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Location............................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Summary of Project Modifications............................................................................................... 3 3 Comparison to the Conditions Listed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ........................... 7

3.1 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................. 7

3.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 9

3.6 Energy........................................................................................................................................... 9

3.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................................... 10

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................... 11

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................. 11

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 12

3.11 Land Use/Planning ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.12 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................... 13

3.13 Noise........................................................................................................................................... 13

3.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................. 13

3.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 14

3.16 Recreation................................................................................................................................... 14

3.17 Transportation and Traffic.......................................................................................................... 14

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 15

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 15

3.20 Wildfire....................................................................................................................................... 16 4 Basis for Addendum........................................................................................................................... 17 Appendices
Appendix A. Development Permit Application No. P21-00726 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted April 14, 2021)
Appendix B. CDFW CNDDB Species List
South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
ii
Figures
Figure 1. Project location map. ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Revised Project site plan................................................................................................................ 6 South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
1 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1.1 Introduction
A Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by the City of Fresno (City) on June 9, 2021, for the South Peach Park Project (Development Permit Application No. P21-00726), hereafter referred to as the Approved Project (2021 IS/MND; Appendix A). The 2021 IS/MND evaluated the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed regional park and soccer complex on the environment. Under the Approved Project, development on the northern parcel would include:
• Open space play areas, picnic areas and equipment playground areas; • Ornamental landscape buffer, woodland area, and water conservation features; • A multipurpose trail (accommodating bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, and roller bladers); • A Veterans Memorial garden;
• A dog park;
• Two basketball courts;
• A softball diamond;
• Two outdoor futsal courts;
• Office space, maintenance, and storage buildings;
• A concession stand, restrooms, and a parking area;
• A community center complex; and
• A multi-purpose hall.

Development on the southern parcel would include:
• Two synthetic grass soccer fields;
• Six natural grass soccer fields; and
• Two indoor soccer/futsal courts.

The environmental analysis in the 2021 IS/MND is tiered from the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR; SCH # 2012111015).

Since adoption of the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project has been revised to include a reconfigured site layout with additional recreational features. These improvements would be constructed entirely within the footprint of the Approved Project previously analyzed in the 2021 IS/MND. The modified project is hereafter referred to as the Revised Project.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
2 1.2 Purpose of Addendum
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, when a lead agency has adopted an IS/MND for a project, a subsequent IS/MND does not need to be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous IS/MND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous IS/MND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an Addendum to an IS/MND is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present and some minor technical changes to the previously 2021 IS/MND are necessary.

1.3 Summary of Conclusions
This IS/MND Addendum to the 2021 IS/MND demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the 2021 IS/MND remain substantively unchanged by the project modifications described herein. The analysis provided within this IS/MND Addendum supports the finding that the project does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the levels of impact significance identified in the 2021 IS/MND. Accordingly, preparation of a subsequent IS/MND is not necessary pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. This determination is based on substantial evidence, as set forth in the following discussion of the Revised Project and the environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project.

This IS/MND Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c); however, the IS/MND Addendum is required to be considered by the decision-making body along with the previously certified 2021 IS/MND prior to making a decision on the Revised Project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)).

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
3 2 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located at 2155 South Peach Avenue in the city of Fresno, Fresno County, California.

The site is located on the east side of South Peach Avenue and encompasses approximately 49.04 acres (Figure 1).

2.2 Summary of Project Modifications
Proposed changes to the project design would result in a reconfigured site layout with additional recreational features constructed entirely within the footprint of the Approved Project previously analyzed in the 2021 IS/MND. Under the Revised Project, proposed changes to the northern parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 473-030-07T) would include the development of:
• A multi-purpose walking path and disc golf course,
• A native plant garden,
• A sensory garden,
• A small breed dog park,
• An open plaza area with seating and shade trees and space for food trucks or farmer’s markets, • An open space natural turf play and picnic area,
• Restroom and maintenance facilities, and
• Vehicle and bicycle parking areas.

Proposed changes to the southern parcels (APNs 481-020-29T and 481-020-30T) would include the development of:
• Four multi-purpose basketball and futsal courts,
• Four multi-purpose tennis and pickleball courts,
• 10 natural turf volleyball courts,
• Four multi-purpose natural turf soccer and field hockey fields and two multi-purpose synthetic turf soccer fields,
• Two cricket pitches,
• A baseball diamond,
• A splash pad,
•
• Multi-use play areas (including tetherball, hopscotch, foursquare, and Bankshot basketball), • Two soft-fall playground areas,
• An open plaza with seating and shade trees,
• Restroom and maintenance facilities,
South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
4 • Vehicle and bicycle parking areas, and
• An internal roadway.

Consistent with the Approved Project previously analyzed in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would include the installation of park and sports lighting and a vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the regional park to shield noise and lighting from surrounding residential uses. A site plan of the Revised Project is shown in Figure 2.

Construction of the project under the Revised Project would require ground disturbance over the entire

49.04-acre project site, including 20,000 cubic yards of fill, with a maximum excavation depth of 20 feet.

Construction of the new regional park is anticipated to begin in Fall 2024 and extend over a period of 10 months.

The Revised Project does not include any changes to the operational components of the Approved Project, including hours of operation and maintenance activities.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
5 Figure 1. Project location map.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
6 Figure 2. Revised Project site plan.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
7 3 COMPARISON TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN STATE
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162
The following evaluation determines whether the Revised Project would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the 2021 IS/MND for the Approved Project. Any future development outside of the scope of this IS/MND Addendum would need to be evaluated for consistency with the 2021 IS/MND and, at that point, a CEQA determination, separate from this IS/MND Addendum, would be made.

3.1 Aesthetics
Section I, Aesthetics, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to visual resources and determined that the Approved Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources within the viewshed of a state scenic highway, or degrade the visual character or quality of the project area. The 2021 IS/MND identified MEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 to reduce potential impacts related to light and glare. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics.

Consistent with the evaluation of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not be located within the viewshed of a designated scenic vista, vista point, or designated State scenic highway. The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the city in an area planned for development. The Revised Project would be consistent with the scale of surrounding development and the urban character of the city; therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially alter the existing visual character of the project area. Parks and athletic fields are exempt from the City’s requirements for outdoor lighting established in Municipal Code Section 15-2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination; however, the proposed parking areas and internal roadways would be required to comply with the City’s requirements for outdoor lighting established in the Municipal Code Section 15-2015. Based on required compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 identified in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to aesthetic resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Section II, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s impacts on agricultural and forestry resources and determined that the Approved Project would not result in the conversion of prime farmland or forestland, conflict with a Williamson Act contract, or conflict with zoning for agricultural or forest land. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources would occur.

The Revised Project would be located entirely within the footprint of the Approved Project. As identified in the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project would not be located on land designated as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) or within agricultural or forest land zoning or land use designations and would not be subject to a Williamson Act contract. The Revised Project does not include any features that could substantially increase dust generation or reduce the availability of water that could indirectly affect agricultural land located outside of the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
8 the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to agricultural resources would occur.

3.3 Air Quality
Section III, Air Quality, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s impacts on air quality and determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Conservation District (SJVAPCD) Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) screening thresholds. Projects that are determined to be consistent with the SJVAPCD SPAL screening thresholds are assumed not to exceed the SJVAPCD’s air emissions thresholds and do not require further air quality analysis. The 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would be required to implement measures to reduce air emissions during construction activities pursuant to SJVAPCD Rule 9510, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant emissions, and would not result in objectionable odors. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to air quality.

Consistent with the determination of the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be consistent with the SJVAPCD SPAL screening thresholds for park acreage and trip generation rates; therefore, air emissions associated with the Revised Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s air emissions thresholds or require further air quality analysis. The Revised Project would also be required to implement measures identified in SJVAPCD Rule 9510 to reduce air emissions during construction activities, which would reduce shortterm construction emissions near sensitive receptors. Any odors generated by construction activities would be intermittent and temporary, and generally would not extend beyond the construction area. The Revised Project does not include the establishment of new land uses or other activities that could generate long-term odors within the project area; therefore, the Revised Project would not result in other emissions or odors and would be consistent with the Approved Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to air quality would occur.

3.4 Biological Resources
Section IV, Biological Resources, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential to adversely impact biological resources and determined that the Approved Project would not directly affect any sensitive species, special-status species, candidate species, associated habitat, or the movement of wildlife with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. The 2021 IS/MND determined that there are no sensitive natural communities or wetlands located on the project site. Based on required compliance with City Municipal Code Chapter 13, Article 3 – Street Trees and Parkways, the Approved Project would not adversely affect trees. Further, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the project site is not within the jurisdiction of a habitat conservation plan (HCP). Therefore, with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to biological resources.

Based on a nine-quadrangle query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), five special-status plant species and 10 special-status animal species have been previously documented in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix B).

A biological field survey was conducted on September 14, 2023 to evaluate existing conditions of the project site and determine if the conditions described in the 2021 IS/MND are still accurate. The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the city and consists of an approximately 49-acre property enclosed by an existing chain-link fence. The project site is primarily undeveloped with the exception of a South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
9 community garden, an accessory structure, and unpaved roadways on the northern site. The remaining portions of the project site consist of ruderal and non-native grasslands. No special-status plant or animal species were identified during the biological field survey. The project site does not contain natural areas, has experienced previous disturbance, and is located in close proximity to existing roadways and singlefamily residences; therefore, the project site does not support suitable habitat for special-status animal species that have been previously documented within the project region. Based on the lack of suitable habitat, no special-status plant or animal species that could be adversely affected by short-term construction activities are expected to occur within the project area. Further, implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 as identified in the 2021 IS/MND would further reduce the potential to adversely affect special-status plant and animal species. There are existing trees located on the project site that could provide nesting habitat for migratory bird species. The Revised Project would be required to implement MEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to reduce potential impacts to migratory bird species. The Revised Project would be located entirely within the footprint of the Approved Project; therefore, the Revised Project would not result in adverse effects related to sensitive natural communities or wetlands and would not be subject to an HCP. The Revised Project would also be required to comply with the provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 13, Article 3 – Street Trees and Parkways, to avoid potential impacts related to trees. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measure BIO-4, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to biological resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.5 Cultural Resources
Section V, Cultural Resources, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential to adversely impact cultural resources and determined there were no historical resources or previously identified archaeological resources or human remains located on the project site. In addition, the 2021 IS/MND determined that with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts related to inadvertent discovery of archaeological and human resources. Therefore, with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to cultural resources.

Construction and ground-disturbing activities for the Revised Project would generally be consistent with the Approved Project; therefore, the potential to disturb cultural resources would be consistent with the evaluation in the 2021 IS/MND. As evaluated in the 2021 IS/MND, there are no historical resources or previously identified archaeological resources or human remains located on the project site; therefore, the Revised Project would not adversely affect historical resources or known archaeological resources or human remains. The Revised Project would be required to implement MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 to address inadvertent discovery of unknown cultural resources and human remains. The proposed project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for the unanticipated discovery of human remains. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 and required compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to cultural resources would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.6 Energy
Section VI, Energy, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts on energy consumption and determined that the Approved Project would not result in a potentially significant South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
10 impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation, nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to energy resources.

Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would require the use of energy in the form of electricty for outdoor lighting and operation of maintenance buildings and in the form of fuel for vehicle trips to and from the project site. The Revised Project would be supplied electricty from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which consists of 50% renewable energy sources and 43% GHG-free energy sources. By using electricity from PG&E, the Revised Project would reduce the long-term use of nonrenewable energy resources. Additionally, the Revised Project would ultimately redirect vehicle trips from other areas within the city by establishing a regional park in an area that currently lacks such facilities in close proximity to existing and planned residential land uses. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially increase energy consumption, which is consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

3.7 Geology and Soils
Section VII, Geology and Soils, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to seismic hazards, erosion, ground-failure, and paleontological resources and determined that the Approved Project would not result in risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic hazards or potential ground-failure events, would not result in substantial erosion, and would not require the construction of septic tanks. The 2021 IS/MND determined that with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts related to paleontological resources. Therefore, with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils.

The Revised Project would be located entirely within the footprint of the Approved Project; therefore, the risk of seismic-related and other ground-failure events would be consistent with the Approved Project.

The Revised Project would be required to comply with the City Public Works Department’s standard specifications for construction and development, applicable California Building Code (CBC) standards, and other applicable engineering standards to avoid risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic hazards or potential ground-failure events. The scale of proposed construction and ground-disturbing activities for the Revised Project would generally be consistent with the Approved Project. The Revised Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil and would be required to comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) General Construction Permit requirements. In addition, the Revised Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Article 7 – Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, which requires implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosive runoff during construction. The Revised Project does not require the construction of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. The project site is underlain by older alluvium (Qoa), which has a low paleontological sensitivity. Based on the low paleontological sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit, Revised Project activities would not be expected to disturb paleontological resources; therefore, mitigation measures beyond what was identified in the 2021 IS/MND would not be necessary. The Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to geology and soil resources would occur, and no additional mitigation is necessary.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
11 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions and determined that the Approved Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

Construction activities for the Revised Project would generally be consistent with the Approved Project.

During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. Federal and state regulations require the use of fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling. Construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would not be expected to engage in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices.

Operation of the Revised Project has the potential to generate GHG emissions from electricity and fossil fuel use. Electricity use for the Revised Project would be limited to the installation of streetlights, which would be provided by PG&E. The PG&E power mix consists of 50% renewable energy sources and 43% GHG-free energy sources. By using electricity from PG&E, the Revised Project would reduce the longterm use of non-renewable energy resources and associated GHG emissions. Additionally, the Revised Project would ultimately redirect vehicle trips from other areas within the city by establishing a regional park in an area that currently lacks such facilities in close proximity to existing and planned residential land uses. Therefore, the Revised Project would not substantially increase GHG emissions, which is consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2021 IS/MND analyzed the Approved Project’s potential to create a significant hazard due to hazards and hazardous materials and determined that the Approved Project would not result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; be located within 0.25 mile of an existing school; interfere with emergency access or evacuation efforts; or increase risk of wildfire. The 2021 IS/MND determined that there is potential for agricultural-related hazardous substances and materials to occur within the project area and identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires soil testing and proper disposal of contaminated soils to avoid release of hazardous materials. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be limited to the operation of a regional park and would not result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Short-term construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling, transport, and storage of hazardous materials, including California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5. Because the Revised Project is located within the same footprint as the Approved Project, there would be similar potential to disturb agricultural-related hazardous substances if present in soils at the project site. The Revised Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires soil testing and proper disposal of contaminated soils to avoid release of hazardous materials. The Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s standard specifications for construction and development and the City of Fresno Fire Department’s design requirements to ensure adequate emergency access and public ingress and egress. Further, the Revised Project would be required to comply with applicable California Fire Code regulations to reduce South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
12 the risk of wildfire. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality and determined that, with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures HYD-5.1 through HYD-5.5, the Approved Project would not result in substantial impacts related to water quality, groundwater recharge, drainage patterns, or stormwater runoff. The 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not be located in an area at risk of inundation due to flood, tsunami, or seiche and would be consistent with the anticipated level of growth within the city; therefore, the City would have sufficient water supply available to serve the Approved Project. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures HYD-5.1 through HYD-5.5, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

The scale of construction and ground-disturbing activities for the Revised Project would generally be consistent with the Approved Project. The Revised Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil and would be required to comply with the Central Valley RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements. In addition, the Revised Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Article 7 – Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, which requires implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge during construction and ensure adequate long-term drainage conditions. The Revised Project would also be required to comply with the requirements of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan to further address long-term drainage conditions of the project site. Based on required compliance with existing RWQCB, City, and FMFCD requirements, the Revised Project would not result in adverse impacts related to water quality, existing drainage patterns, or stormwater flows; therefore, mitigation beyond what was identified in the 2021 IS/MND would not be necessary. The Revised Project would be located entirely within the same footprint of the Approved Project and would not be located in an area at risk of inundation due to flood, tsunami or seiche. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be consistent with the expected buildout scenario identified in the City’s General Plan and would not deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. Based on required compliance with RWQCB, City, and FMFCD requirements, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur, and additional mitigation is not necessary.

3.11 Land Use/Planning
Section XI, Land Use and Planning, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s consistency with the applicable local planning documents and determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the existing land use designation and would have less-thansignificant impacts related to land use and planning.

Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be consistent with the allowable uses of the property’s land use and zoning designations and would be consistent with the expected buildout scenario identified in the City’s General Plan. The Revised Project would not result in the removal or blockage of existing public roadways or other circulation paths and would not otherwise include any South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
13 features that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.

3.12 Mineral Resources
As determined in Section XII, Mineral Resources, of the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources of value to the region or of local importance. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the project site is not located in an area with known mineral resources; therefore, the Revised Project would not result in the loss of availability of known or locally important mineral resources. The Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to mineral resources would occur.

3.13 Noise
Section XIII, Noise, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s consistency with the City’s noise thresholds and determined that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 and required compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the Approved Project would not increase short- or long-term ambient noise levels above the City’s thresholds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant-impacts related to noise.

Construction activities for the Revised Project would result in a short-term increase in noise and groundborne vibration. According to City Municipal Code Section 10-109 – Exceptions and Section 15-2507 – Vibration, construction-related noise and vibration is exempt from the City’s noise standards between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. Construction-related noise would be temporary and conducted in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code; therefore, implementation of mitigation measures beyond what was identified for the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND would not be necessary. The Revised Project would be consistent with the intended use of the property and includes the installation of a landscape buffer to reduce noise long-term noise levels at nearby single-family residences. Additionally, the project site is not located within 2 miles of an existing airport and the Revised Project would not expose project occupants to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to noise would occur.

3.14 Population and Housing
As determined in Section 14, Population and Housing, of the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project would be consistent with the intended use of the property and would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth because it would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations and the intended use of the property. Further, the Revised Project would not result in the removal or relocation of existing homes. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to population and housing would occur.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
14 3.15 Public Services
As determined in Section 15, Public Services, of the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees and would not interfere with or increase demand on existing fire protection services, police protection services, public schools, public parks, or other public facilities. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees to offset the increase in demand on existing public services. Further, the Revised Project would have a beneficial impact related to demand on existing recreational facilities because it would ultimately reduce the demand on other existing recreational and park facilities within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to public services would occur.

3.16 Recreation
As determined in Section 16, Recreation, of the 2021 IS/MND, the Approved Project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees and would not interfere with or increase demand on existing recreational facilities. Consistent with the analysis of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees to offset the increase in demand on existing public recreational and park facilities. Further, the Revised Project would have a beneficial impact related to demand on existing recreational facilities because it would ultimately reduce the demand on other existing recreational and park facilities within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to recreation would occur.

3.17 Transportation and Traffic
Section XVII, Transportation, of the 2021 IS/MND analyzed the Approved Project’s potential impacts on the circulation system and determined that the Approved Project would not exceed the capacity of existing roadways, impede existing transit operations, conflict with the City’s Active Transportation Plan, or conflict with parking requirements established in City Municipal Code Section 15-2429 – Bicycle Parking. Further, the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the Approved Project determined that vehicle trips to and from the proposed regional park would be redistributed from other areas in the city and would not generate new vehicle trips; therefore, it was determined that the Approved Project would result in no net increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Based on required compliance with the City of Fresno Fire Department’s design requirements for access and internal roadways, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in hazardous roadway design or inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to transportation.

Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not exceed the capacity of existing roadways, impede existing transit operations, conflict with the City’s Active Transportation Plan, or conflict with parking requirements established in the City’s Municipal Code. The Revised Project would continue to redistribute existing vehicle trips within the city and would not result in an increase in VMT.

Further, the Revised Project would also be required to comply with the City’s standard specifications for construction and development and City of Fresno Fire Department’s design requirements to avoid hazardous roadway design and inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to transportation and traffic would occur.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
15 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was conducted for the Approved Project and no requests for consultation were received. The 2021 IS/MND determined that with implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts related to inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources.

As evaluated in the 2021 IS/MND, there are no historical resources or previously identified archaeological resources or human remains located on the project site; therefore, the Revised Project would not adversely affect historical resources or known archaeological resources or human remains. The Revised Project would be required to implement MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 to address inadvertent discovery of unknown tribal cultural resources. The Revised Project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for the unanticipated discovery of human remains. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the 2021 IS/MND. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur, and additional mitigation is not necessary.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to utilities and service systems and determined that the Approved Project would not require the expansion or construction of off-site utility infrastructure, that on-site utility infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with the City Public Works Department’s standard specifications for construction and development, and the Approved Project would be subject to the payment of connection charges and/or fees. The 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with the anticipated level of growth within the city; therefore, the City would have sufficient water supply available to serve the Approved Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Further, because the Approved Project would be consistent with the anticipated level of growth within the city, the existing capacity of existing wastewater treatment providers would not be exceeded. The 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would generate a limited quantity of solid waste and would not exceed the existing capacity of local landfills nor conflict with waste-reduction goals. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Consistent with the 2021 IS/MND, the Revised Project would be consistent with the level of buildout anticipated in the City’s General Plan and would not result in substantial or unplanned growth that could strain the City’s utility infrastructure. The Revised Project would be generally consistent with the level and scale of the Approved Project and would not require the expansion or construction of off-site utility infrastructure, deplete the City’s existing water supply, exceed the capacity of existing wastewater treatment providers, or exceed the capacity of local landfills. The Revised Project would continue to be subject to the City Public Works Department’s standard specifications for construction and development and would be subject to the payment of connection charges and/or fees and local waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems would occur.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
16 3.20 Wildfire
Section XX, Wildfire, of the 2021 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to wildfire and determined that the Approved Project would not increase the risk of wildfire within the project area because the project site is located in an urban area with low risk of wildfire. Therefore, the 2021 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to wildfire.

The Revised Project is located within the same footprint as the Approved Project and would have a similar risk of wildfire occurrence. The Revised Project would be required to comply with California Fire Code and City Public Works Department’s standard specifications for construction and development to reduce risk associated with wildfire ignition at the project site and inadequate emergency access. Based on required compliance with the California Fire Code and City Public Works Department’s requirements, the Revised Project would not result in adverse impacts related to wildfire. Therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the determination of the Approved Project in the 2021 IS/MND, and no new or more severe impacts related to wildfire would occur.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
17 4 BASIS FOR ADDENDUM
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15164 and would not require the preparation of a subsequent IS/MND. The proposed revisions to the Approved Project are relatively minor in nature and, as documented above, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was adopted has been identified. The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum and finds that the preparation of subsequent CEQA analysis that would require public circulation is not necessary.

South Peach Park Project (Development Permit App No. P21-00726) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum
18 This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX A
Development Permit Application No. P21-00726
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted April 14, 2021)

CITY OF FRESNO

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Notice of Intent was filed
with:

FRESNO COUNTY
CLERK
2220 Tulare Street
Fresno, California 93721
on
April 14, 2021
The full Initial Study and the Fresno
General Plan Master Environmental
Impact Report are on file in the
Development and Resource
Management Department,
Fresno City Hall, 3rd Floor
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
(559) 621-8277

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NUMBER:

P21-00726
APPLICANT:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development
Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION:
2155 S. Peach Avenue, Fresno CA 93727; located on the east side of South Peach Avenue.
±49.04 acres
Site Latitude: 36°43'18.76"N
Site Longitude: -119°42'58.77"W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 14S, Range 20E
Section 26 – California
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 481-020-29T, 481-020-30T, and 473-030-07T
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Development Permit Application No. P21-00726 was filed by 3362 East Balch Avenue, Fresno, California 93702, United States. The applicant proposes to develop a regional park and soccer complex on a site that encompasses two park parcels (Northern Parcel and Southern Parcel) at 2155 South Peach Avenue. The two park parcels are rectangular in shape and are separated by a 60-foot wide Southern Pacific Railroad Parcel, which includes a railroad track and the Braley canal. No General Plan amendment or rezone is required, as the public park uses are allowed under the existing PR and RS-1 zoning, as well as under the CP General Plan designation.

Park Concept:

The Northern Parcel encompasses 18.5 acres and anticipates development of the following features:
• Open space play areas, picnic areas and equipment playground areas; • Ornamental landcape buffer, woodland area, and water conservation features; • A multipurpose trail (accommodating bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, and roller bladers); • A Veterans Memorial garden;
• Dog Park;
• Two Basketball courts;
• A softball diamond;
• Two outdoor futsal courts;
• Office space, maintenance, and storage buildings;
• Concession stand, restrooms, and a parking area;
• Community center complex; and
• A Multi-purpose hall.

The Southern Parcel encompasses approximately 30 acres and anticipates development the following features:
• Two synthetic grass soccer fields;
• Six natural grass soccer fields; and
• Indoor soccer/futsal facility-two courts.

Entitlements
Environmental Assessment No. P21-00726 would require approval of the Development Permit The City of Fresno has conducted an initial study and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-described project. The environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study and this Mitigated Negative Declaration is tiered from the Master Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2012111015) prepared for the Fresno General Plan (“MEIR”). A copy of the MEIR may be reviewed in the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department as noted above. The proposed project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the MEIR prepared for the Fresno General Plan. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21157.1 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15177, this project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached environmental checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment which was not previously examined in the MEIR. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the MEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157.6(b)(1), the Development and Resource Management Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the MEIR was certified as complete, has become available.

This completed environmental impact checklist form, its associated narrative, technical studies and proposed mitigation measures reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analyses conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.

All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.

Based upon the evaluation guided by the environmental checklist form, it was determined that there are foreseeable impacts from the project that are additional to those identified in the MEIR, and/or impacts which require mitigation measures not included in the MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist.

The completed environmental checklist form indicates whether an impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.

For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent in the nature and magnitude of the project, or may be related to the design and characteristics of the individual project. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and have been mitigated to the extent feasible. With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the MEIR. Both the MEIR Mitigation Measure Checklist and the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist will be imposed on this project.

The initial study has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The finding is, therefore, made that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

PREPARED BY:

Chris Lang, Planner III
SUBMITTED BY:

Mike Sanchez, Assistant Director

CITY OF FRESNO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: April 12, 2021
Attachments: - Vicinity Map
- Notice of Intent
- Initial Study Impact Checklist and Initial Study (Appendix G) - City of Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist dated April 6, 2021
- Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated April 6, 2021
-Appendix A: CalEEMod and Energy Calculations
-Appendix B: Cultural Resource Assessment
-Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
-Appendix D: Water Supply Assessment
-Appendix E: Noise Impact Study
-Appendix F: Transportation Impact Study
-Appendix G: Site Design Scheme
! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
E Illinois Ave
Fresno
Pacific
University
Sunnyside Country Club
Ayer
Elementary
Aynesworth
Elementary
Burroughs
Elementary
Cambridge
Continuation
High
David L.

Greenberg
Elementary
Easterby
Elementary
Edith B.

Storey
Elementary
Elizabeth
Terronez
Middle
Ezekiel
Balderas
Elementary
Kings
Canyon
Middle
Lane
Elementary
Mario G.

Olmos
Elementary
Phoenix
Secondary
Sunnyside
High
Mosqueda
Community
Center
Sunnyside
Park
Trolley
Creek Park
Pilibos
Soccer Park
Willow-Balch
Park
E California Ave
E Church Ave
N Clovis Ave
E North Ave
E Tulare St
E Kings Canyon Rd
N
Maple Ave
S
Chestnut Ave
S
Clovis Ave
S Peach Ave
S
Maple Ave
S
Minnewawa Ave
S
Sunnyside Ave
S
Willow
Ave E Lane Ave
E Butler Ave
E Annadale Ave
N Dewitt Ave
N Sunnyside Ave
N Jackson Ave
E Hamilton Ave
E Huntington Ave
S Willow Ave
S McmillinAve
N Sierra Vista Ave
E Mckenzie Ave
E Beck Ave
S Sunnys ide Ave
E Erin Ave
E Butler Ave
S Argyle Ave
E Washington Ave
S Whitney Ave
E Garrett Ave
S Jackson Ave
S Sierra Vista Ave
E Kaviland Ave
E Byrd Ave
E Date Ave
E Grove Ave
E Florence Ave
S Price Ave
E Liberty Ave
S Dearing Ave
E Pitt Ave
E Lane Ave
E Alta Ave
S Backer Ave E El Monte Way
E Lyell Ave
E Geary St
E Balch Ave
E Edgar Ave
E Commerce Ave
E Vine Ave

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL FRESNO PARK

AND SOCCER SPORTS COMPLEX
Vicinity Map
Sources: Fresno County GIS; City of Fresno GIS;
USGS NHD; Google Maps. Map date: December 7, 2020.

LEGEND
Project Boundary
City of Fresno
Unincorporated Fresno County
! ! ! ! Canal
k School
Park
Fancher Creek Canal
Washington Canal
Fresno Colony Canal
Fancher Creek Canal
0 O1,000 2,000
Feet
San Joaquin Valley RR San Joaquin Valley RR

CITY OF FRESNO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Filed with:

FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721
EA No. P21-00726 for
Environmental Assessment No. P21-00726
PROJECT SPONSOR:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION:
2155 S. Peach Avenue, Fresno CA 93727; located on the
east side of South Peach Avenue. ±49.04 acres
Site Latitude: 36°43'18.76"N
Site Longitude: -119°42'58.77"W
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 481-020-29T, 481-020-30T,
and 473-030-07T
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Park Concept:

The Northern Parcel encompasses 18.5 acres and anticipates development of the following features:

Open space play areas, picnic areas and equipment playground areas; Ornamental landcape buffer, woodland area, and water conservation features; A multipurpose trail (accommodating bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, and roller bladers); A Veterans Memorial garden; Dog Park; Two Basketball courts; A softball diamond; Two outdoor futsal courts; Office space, maintenance, and storage buildings; Concession stand, restrooms, and a parking area; Community center complex; and A Multi-purpose hall.

The Southern Parcel encompasses approximately 30 acres and anticipates development the following features: Two synthetic grass soccer fields; Six natural grass soccer fields; and Indoor soccer/futsal facility-two courts.

Entitlements
Environmental Assessment No. P21-00726 would require approval of the Development Permit The City of Fresno has conducted an initial study of the above-described project and it has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012111015 (MEIR) prepared for the Fresno General Plan. Therefore, the Development and Resource Management Department proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the MEIR. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the MEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157.6(b)(1), the Development and Resource Management Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the MEIR was certified as complete has become available. The project is not located on a site which is included on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code including, but not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others, and the information in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under subdivision (f) of that Section.

Additional information on the proposed project, including the MEIR proposed environmental finding of a mitigated negative declaration and the initial study may be obtained from the Development and Resource Management Department, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor Fresno, Room 3043, California 93721-3604. Please contact Summer Cecil at (559) 621-8166 for more information.

ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments must be in writing and must state (1) the commentor’s name and address; (2) the commentor’s interest in, or relationship to, the project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at any time between the publication date of this notice and close of business on May 14, 2021. Please direct comments to Summer Cecil, Project Manager, City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, California, 93721-3604; or by email to [email protected]; or comments can be sent by facsimile to (559) 498-1026.

INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:

Chris Lang, Planner III
SUBMITTED BY:

DATE: April 9, 2021
Mike Sanchez, Assistant Director

CITY OF FRESNO PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Form for:

Development Permit Application No. P21-00726

1. Project title:

Development Permit Application No. P21-00726

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:

Summer Cecil, Project Manager
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8166

4. Project location:
2155 S. Peach Avenue, Fresno CA 93727; located on the east side of South Peach Avenue. ±49.04 acres
Site Latitude: 36°43'18.76"N
Site Longitude: -119°42'58.77"W
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 481-020-29T, 481-020-30T, and 473-030-07T

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Southeast Fresno Community Economic Development Association, Inc. (SEFCEDA) 3362 East Balch Avenue,
Fresno, California 93702, United States

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

Community Park (CP)

7. Zoning:

North Site: Parks and Recreation (PR); South Site: Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low-Density RS-1/UGM
2 8. Description of project:

The operational components of this facility can be grouped in the following four categories:

1. Open Free Recreation and Park Access. Free activities available during this component are typical of a regional park facility and they will include visiting open space play areas, picnic areas, equipment playground areas, a multipurpose trail and a woodland area, a dogs' park, a veteran's memorial garden, basketball, volleyball courts and a softball diamond.

2. Organized Futsal Programs. Two outdoor Futsal Courts that will accommodate organized tournaments, leagues, practice games and special events that will be available for a fee to the users and attendees.

3. Organized Soccer Programs. Initially, two outdoor Soccer regulation-size fields that will accommodate organized tournaments, leagues, practice games and special events will be available for a fee to the users and attendees.

Additionally, over time, six additional soccer regulation-size fields with natural grass are anticipated to be added, which would support additional organized tournaments, leagues, practice games and special events.

4. Special events, promotions and fundraising activities. The scheduling of special events, promotions and fundraising activities, including displays at this site will comply with policies and procedures of the City of Fresno.

Park Concept:

The Northern Parcel encompasses 18.5 acres and anticipates development of the following features:
• Open space play areas, picnic areas and equipment playground areas; • Ornamental landscape buffer, woodland area, and water conservation features; • A multipurpose trail (accommodating bicyclists, joggers, pedestrians, and roller bladers);
• A Veterans Memorial garden;
3 • Dog Park;
• Two Basketball courts;
• A softball diamond;
• Two outdoor futsal courts;
• Office space, maintenance, and storage buildings;
• Concession stand, restrooms, and a parking area;
• Community center complex; and
• A Multi-purpose hall.

Park Operation:

The hours of operations of the regional park components will be from sunrise to sunset. This facility will be open on a first-come first-serve basis, and reservations of space will be possible. It will be open all days of the calendar year. The Community Garden is only available to individuals assigned space to grow vegetables. Total area available at the Northern Parcel where these facilities are located include a total of 18.5 acres. A 20-foot buffer of landscaping and shrubs would help mitigate any noise generated by visitors. Any required lighting will be directed away from neighboring homes.

Impact of Soccer and Futsal leagues, tournaments, and special events. The hours of operation of the area occupied by two Futsal Courts and two Soccer fields will be from 3:00 pm to 9:00 pm weekdays; and from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekends.

It is anticipated that during the 365 days of the year, 65% of the time (240 days), these four facilities will be used to hold leagues for children and adults. The scheduling of tournaments for both sports at four facilities for children and adults will take about 22% of the time (82 days). The remaining of the time, 12% of the time, (about 43 days) will be used to allow the facilities to rest and to rent them to teams for practice activities during off-season time periods.

Leagues:

It is estimated that on an annual basis the two soccer fields will be able to schedule four league seasons, that each league could include up to 72 teams per league, for a maximum total of 1,296 players (18 players per team).
4 It is estimated that on an annual basis the two futsal courts will be able to schedule four league seasons, that each league could include up to 72 teams per league, for a maximum total of 720 players (10 players per team).

The number of event participants and public members is limited by the number of games that can be scheduled in the two type of facilities available. It should also be noted that leagues and tournaments are held with teams of similar age level divisions.

Tournaments:

It is estimated that on an annual basis the two soccer fields will be able to schedule 44 tournaments, that each tournament could include up to 88 teams per tournament, for a maximum total of 880 players per tournament (10 players per team).

It is estimated that on an annual basis the two futsal courts will be able to schedule 44 tournaments, that each tournament could include up to 88 teams per tournaments, for a maximum total of 1,296 players (18 players per team).

Existing Site Uses:

The site is currently defunct and not in use. Much of the site is surrounded by a wire fence and landscaping. The existing property contains the following:

Northern parcel
• 3 (three) Buildings, which are boarded up and not currently utilized; • Defunct Greenhouse and pump house;
• Loading docks, shelters, and vacant storage sheds;
• Community Garden surrounded by a chain-link fence;
• Entrance/exist roads; and
• Fields
Southern parcel
• Fields (includes an expired tree fruit orchard and agricultural field); • Roads (one dirt road entrance); and
• Vegetation.
5 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North Residential - Medium
Low Density
RS-4
Residential Single-Family, Medium
Density
Residential Community
East Residential - Medium
Low Density
RS-4
Residential Single-Family, Medium
Density
Residential Community
South
Residential - Medium
Low Density;
Residential – Medium
Density
RS-4 & RS-5
Residential Single-Family, Medium
Low Density; Residential SingleFamily, Medium Density
Residential Community
West
Residential - Medium
Low Density;
Residential – Medium
Density
RS-4 & RS-5
Residential Single-Family, Medium
Low Density; Residential SingleFamily, Medium Density
Residential
Community/Vacant
Land

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Planning and Development Department, Building & Safety Services Division; Department of Public Works; Department of Public Utilities; City of Fresno Fire Department; Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public 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 California 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 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 6 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. Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on March 1, 2021. The 30-day comment period ended on March 31, 2021. Both tribes did not request consultation.

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 ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
7 ___ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X__
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
___ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

___________________________________________________________________ Planner Name, Title Date

EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT ASSESSED IN THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR):

1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the subsequent project will not cause any additional significant effect related to the threshold under consideration which was not previously examined in the MEIR.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR, but that impact is less than significant;
c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not 8 previously examined in the MEIR, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is an additional potentially significant effect related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR.

2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

3. All answers must take account of the whole 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, MEIR, 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 MEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 9 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. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

10.The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The site is located within an area undergoing continued growth in development. Areas to the east, north, west, and south have been developed and continue to be developed with residential uses. The project site is currently developed with scattered agricultural uses. Property to the west includes vacant land previously used for agricultural purposes. Property to the north, south, east, and west include residential developments. The existing topography of the subject property is nearly flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 305 to 310 feet above mean sea level.

A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides a distant view of highly valued natural or man‐made landscape features for the benefit of the general public. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas can be obtained as well as locations where valued urban landscape features can be viewed in the distance.

The Fresno General Plan MEIR provides and recognizes that the City has not identified or designated scenic vistas within its General Plan. Although no scenic vista has been designated, it is acknowledged that scenic vistas within the Planning Area could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the San Joaquin 11 River along the northern boundary of the Planning Area and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. The River bluffs provide distant views of the San Joaquin River as well as areas north of the River. However, the majority of these views are from private property. There are limited views of the San Joaquin River from Weber Avenue, Milburn Avenue, McCampbell Drive, Valentine Avenue, Palm Avenue, State Route 41, Friant Road, and Woodward Park. There are various locations throughout the eastern portion of the Planning Area that provide views of the Sierra Nevada foothills that are located northeast and east of the Planning Area. These distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills are impeded many days during the year by the poor air quality in the Fresno region. Distant views of man‐made landscape features include the Downtown Fresno buildings that provide a unique skyline.

The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; therefore, a less than significant impact would result. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Scenic resources include landscapes and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing. They contribute positively to a distinct community or region. These resources produce a visual benefit upon communities. The scenic resources within the Planning Area include landscaped open spaces such as parks and golf courses.

Additional scenic resources within the Planning Area include areas along the San Joaquin River due to the topographic variation in the relatively flat San Joaquin Valley. The River bluffs provide a unique geological feature in the San Joaquin Valley. Historic structures in Downtown Fresno buildings also represent scenic resources because they provide a unique skyline.

Although superseded by the Fresno General Plan (§15-104-B-4.b of the FMC) the Bullard Community Plan previously depicted six vista points along the bluffs overlooking the San Joaquin River bottom and environs. Two of the vista points within Riverview Estates were recognized as having either been developed or committed to development through tentative map approval, prior to the establishment of the Bullard Community Plan standards. As a result, the two committed sites were considered minimal facilities with potential access and other problems. To avoid such future problems, standards were prepared within the Bullard Community Plan to guide development of the four remaining vista points.

The purpose of the vista points was to provide limited bluff access to non-area residents and to offer panoramic views of the river bluffs and river bottom. Such views were considered best be enjoyed as part of a passive recreational experience where one can stop, relax and absorb the natural beauty of the river environment. As such, the vista points were recommended to be designed to accommodate local residents who walk, non-area residents who bike, and the driving public. 12 None of the six vista point locations shown on the Bullard Community Plan Map are located in the nearby vicinity of the subject property. Each vista point is located over 8 miles to the north of the project site. As such, impacts related to these vista points would not occur.

Given the site’s distance from the San Joaquin River (i.e., approximately 10 miles northwest of the site), the proposed project will not interfere with public views of the San Joaquin River environs. Furthermore, as there are no designated public or scenic vistas on or adjacent to the subject property, there is no potential for adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Furthermore, the Fresno General Plan MEIR recognizes and acknowledges that poor air quality reduces existing views within the City of Fresno sphere of influence as a whole, and therefore finds that a less than significant impact will result to views of highly valued features such as the Sierra Nevada foothills from future development on and in the vicinity of the subject property.

Finally, the project site is not within the vicinity of a State designated scenic highway; therefore, a less than significant impact would result. c) In non-urbanized areas, 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 scenic quality?
The project will not damage nor will it degrade the visual character or quality of the subject site and its surroundings, given that the project site is in an area within close proximity to existing residential development; and, in an area generally planned for and developed with residential and residential-friendly uses. Therefore, a less than significant impact would result.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The development of the regional park and soccer complex on a site that encompasses two park parcels (Northern Parcel and Southern Parcel) at 2155 South Peach Avenue, would create new sources of light and glare within the area. However, the hours of operations of the regional park components will be from sunrise to sunset. Moreover, given that the project site is within an area which has been previously developed or is currently being developed, which already affect day and night time views in the project area to a degree equal or greater than the proposed project, no significant impact will occur. The project would be subject to the applicable mitigation measures pertaining to light and glare included in in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 (such as Mitigation Measure AES-1 and Mitigation Measure AES-2, as provided in the attached MEIR 13 Mitigation Checklist).

Furthermore, through the entitlement process, staff will ensure that lights are located in areas that will minimize light sources to the neighboring properties in accordance with the mitigation measures of the MEIR.

In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the project will not result in any aesthetic resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact related to light and glare.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the aesthetic related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

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 effects, 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:
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 nonagricultural use?
X
14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to nonforest 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?
Based upon the 2016 Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of the State of California Department of Conservation, the project site is designated “Farmland of Local Importance”. The area to the north, east, west, and south of the site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land”.

The northern parcel of the subject property is currently utilized for scattered agricultural uses.
15 The Fresno General Plan MEIR analyzed “project specific” impacts associated with future development within the Planning Area (Sphere of Influence) as well as the cumulative impacts factored from future development in areas outside of the Planning Area. The MEIR identifies locations within the Planning Area that have been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance through the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Department of Conservation. The analysis of impacts contained within the MEIR acknowledges that Fresno General Plan implementation anticipates all of the FMMP-designated farmland within the Planning Area being converted to uses other than agriculture. Furthermore, the MEIR acknowledges that the anticipated conversion is a significant impact on agricultural resources.

To reduce potential project-specific and cumulative impacts on agricultural uses, the General Plan incorporates objectives and policies, which include but are not limited to the following:

Objective G-5: While recognizing that the County of Fresno retains the primary responsibility for agricultural land use policies and the protection and advancement of farming operations, the City of Fresno will support efforts to preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization and outside of the City’s public service delivery capacity by being responsible in its land use plans, public service delivery plans, and development policies.

G-5-b. Policy: Plan for the location and intensity of urban development in a manner that efficiently utilizes land area located within the planned urban boundary, including the North and Southeast Growth Areas, while promoting compatibility with agricultural uses located outside of the planned urban area.

G-5-f. Policy: Oppose lot splits and development proposals in unincorporated areas within and outside the City General Plan boundary when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the general plan; or, • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the metropolitan area (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).

RC-9-c. Policy: Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the 16 requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

However, the MEIR recognizes that despite implementation of the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan, project and cumulative impacts on agricultural resources will remain significant; and, that no feasible measures in addition to the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan are available.

In 2014, through passage of Council Resolution No. 2014-225, the City of Fresno adopted Findings of Fact related to Significant and Unavoidable Effects as well as Statements of Overriding Considerations in order to certify MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for purposes of adoption of the Fresno General Plan. Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.

The adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations for the MEIR addressed Findings of Significant Unavoidable Impacts within the categories/areas of Agricultural Resources; citing specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers as project goals, each and all of which were deemed and considered by the Fresno City Council to be benefits, which outweighed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects attributed to development occurring within the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence (SOI), consistent with the land uses, densities, and intensities set forth in the Fresno General Plan.

The project site is and continues to be further encompassed with urban development. The project site is a logical expansion for purposes of orderly development within existing City limits. Given these circumstances, the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the Fresno General Plan as referenced herein above; and, will not result in the premature conversion of agricultural lands or constitute a detriment to the management of agricultural resources and/or facilities important to the metropolitan area. Therefore, the project will have no impact related to important farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The subject property is not subject to a Williamson Act agricultural land conservation contract. Therefore, the proposed project on the subject site will not affect existing agriculturally zoned or Williamson Act contract parcels. There would be no impact 17 related to agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The proposed project will not conflict with any forest land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land. There would be no impact related to forest land or timberland.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? As noted above, the proposed project will not conflict with any forest land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land. There is no forest land on-site or in the project vicinity. There would be no impact related to forest land. 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?
As discussed in Impact AG‐1 of the MEIR, future development in accordance with the Fresno General Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non‐agricultural use. The implementation of project development would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the project boundary or Planning Area. In addition, development in accordance with the General Plan would not impact forest land as discussed in Section 7.2.1 of the Draft Master EIR. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on farmland or forest land involving other changes in the existing environment which fall outside of the scope of the analyses contained within the MEIR.

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:
18 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
Setting
The subject site is located in the City of Fresno and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). This region has had chronic non-attainment of federal and state clean air standards for ozone/oxidants and particulate matter due to a combination of topography and climate. The San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is hemmed in on three sides by mountain ranges, with prevailing winds carrying pollutants and pollutant precursors from urbanized areas to the north (and in turn contributing pollutants and precursors to downwind air basins). The Mediterranean climate of this region, with a high number of sunny days and little or no measurable precipitation for several months of the year, fosters photochemical reactions in the atmosphere, creating ozone and particulate 19 matter. Regional factors affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants within the SJVAB.

Air pollutant emissions overall are fairly constant throughout the year, yet the concentrations of pollutants in the air vary from day to day and even hour to hour. This variability is due to complex interactions of weather, climate, and topography. These factors affect the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants. Conditions that move and mix the atmosphere help disperse pollutants, while conditions that cause the atmosphere to stagnate allow pollutants to concentrate. Local climatological effects, including topography, wind speed and direction, temperature, inversion layers, precipitation, and fog can exacerbate the air quality problem in the SJVAB.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide, and is the second largest air basin in the state. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The Valley is basically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest.

The Valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. The Valley, thus, could be considered a “bowl” open only to the north.

During the summer, wind speed and direction data indicate that summer wind usually originates at the north end of the Valley and flows in a south-southeasterly direction through the Valley, through Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In addition, the Altamont Pass also serves as a funnel for pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin into the region.

During the winter, wind speed and direction data indicate that wind occasionally originates from the south end of the Valley and flows in a north-northwesterly direction. Also, during the winter months, the Valley generally experiences light, variable winds (less than 10 mph). Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations. The SJVAB has an “Inland Mediterranean” climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The Valley floor is characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler winters. For the entire Valley, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95ºF.

Temperatures below freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low temperature is 45ºF.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Solar energy heats up the Earth’s surface, which in turn radiates heat and warms the lower atmosphere. Therefore, as altitude increases, the air temperature usually decreases due to increasing distance from the source of heat.

A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Inversions can exist at the surface or at any height above the 20 ground, and tend to act as a lid on the Valley, holding in the pollutants that are generated here.

Regulations
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the local regional jurisdictional entity charged with attainment planning, rulemaking, rule enforcement, and monitoring under Federal and State Clean Air Acts and Clean Air Act Amendments.

To aid in evaluating potentially significant construction and/or operational impacts of a project, SJVAPCD has prepared an advisory document, the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), which contains standard procedures for addressing air quality in CEQA documents. GAMAQI presents a three-tiered approach to air quality analysis. The Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) is first used to screen the project for potentially significant impacts. A project that meets the screening criteria at this level requires no further analysis and air quality impacts of the project may be deemed less than significant. If a project does not meet all the criteria at this screening level, additional screening is recommended at the Cursory Analysis Level and, if warranted, the Full Analysis Level. The SPAL thresholds are provided by project type and by number of vehicle trips. By project type (for city park uses), the threshold is 256 acres. By vehicle trips (for city park), the threshold is 1,100 trips per day. According to the Transportation Impact Study prepared by Kittelson & Associates, the project would not increase the number of truck trips, vehicle trips, or other trips related to traffic and circulation. Instead, the project would redistribute existing trips, and decrease the average trip length associated with travel to regional parks/parks with soccer or football fields. Given that the project would not exceed the SPAL threshold by project size or by number of trips, the proposed project is considered to have less than significant impacts pertaining to air emissions and is excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes, in accordance with the SJVAPCD GAMAQI.

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII mandates requirements for any type of ground moving activity and would be adhered to during construction; however, during construction, air quality impacts would be less than SJVAPCD thresholds for non-attainment pollutants and operation of the project would not result in impacts to air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

The SJVAPCD accounts for cumulative impacts to air quality in its GAMAQI. The SJVAPCD considered basin-wide cumulative impacts to air quality when developing its significance thresholds. The SJVAPCD’s air quality significance thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans, and is not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. These are developed based on the ambient concentrations of the pollutant for each source. As noted above, because the project size is below the SPAL threshold, the project would not exceed the air quality significance thresholds on the project-level. Therefore, the project would not 21 otherwise conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans, the project is consistent with the land use assumptions for the project site in the City’s General Plan and MEIR, and the cumulative emissions would not be a significant contribution to a cumulative impact.

The proposed project would comply with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII dust control requirements during any proposed construction (including Rules 8011, 8031, 8041, and 8071). Compliance with this regulation would reduce the potential for significant localized PM10 impacts to less than significant levels.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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?
As noted above, the SJVAPCD SPAL is first used to screen the project for potentially significant impacts. A project that meets the screening criteria at this level requires no further analysis and air quality impacts of the project may be deemed less than significant. Specifically, the SJVAPCD considers projects that meets its SPAL screening criteria to not conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. If a project does not meet all the criteria at this screening level, additional screening is recommended at the Cursory Analysis Level and, if warranted, the Full Analysis Level. For city park uses, the threshold (by project size) is 256 acres. For city park uses, the threshold (by vehicle trips) is 1,100 trips per day (according to the most recent version of the SJVAPCD’ SPAL guidance document). Since the project would not exceed the SPAL project size or trip per day value, the proposed project is considered to have less than significant impacts pertaining to air emissions and is excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes.

The growth projections used for the Fresno General Plan assume that growth in population, vehicle use and other source categories will occur at historically robust rates that are consistent with the rates used to develop the SJVAPCD’s attainment plans. In other words, the amount of growth predicted for the General Plan is accommodated by the SJVAPCD’s attainment plan and would allow the air basin to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the 2023 attainment date. Future development on the subject property is required to comply with these rules and regulations providing additional support for the conclusion that it will not interfere or obstruct with the application of the attainment plans.

The proposed project will comply with the Resource Conservation Element of the Fresno General Plan and the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Fresno Council of Fresno County Governments; 22 therefore, the project will not conflict with or obstruct an applicable air quality plan.

Because the project site has been planned for Community Park (CP) development since the General Plan MEIR was adopted, and because the project would have less than significant project-level impacts related to criteria air pollutants, the cumulative increase of any criteria pollutant would also be less than significant. As noted above, the project would not otherwise conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans, the project is consistent with the land use assumptions for the project site in the City’s General Plan and MEIR, and the cumulative emissions would not be a significant contribution to a cumulative impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The SJVAPCD recommends that a screening analysis be performed to determine if a refined Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed. The District’s recommended method for screening risks is by using its prioritization calculator based on the CaliforniaAirPollution Control Officers FacilityPrioritization Guidelines (August 2016). The prioritization calculator will provide a score based on the emission potency method. The prioritization score is an indicator of a facility’s potential risk.

Scores of 10 or greater indicate that a refined HRA should be prepared because there is the potential for a significant health risk. Scores less than 10 indicate that the project’s TAC emissions are not a high risk.

The project would not emit TACs. As such, the TACs emitted from the project site would be equal or less than the existing condition. In addition, since the proposed project would not result in industrial development [i.e. that exceeds 100,000 sf of heavy industrial uses, which is an adopted threshold for conducting an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) in accordance with District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)], an AIA application will not be submitted to the SJVAPCD for their review and approval.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would result.

District Rule 9510 was adopted to reduce the impact of NOx and provide emission reductions needed by the SJVAPCD to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM10 standard and contributed reductions that assist in attaining federal ozone standards.

Rule 9510 also contributes toward attainment of state standards for these pollutants.

The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD-administered projects, or a combination of the two.

Compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 reduces the emissions impacts through incorporation of onsite measures as well as payment of an offsite fee that funds emission reduction projects in the Air Basin. The emissions analysis for Rule 9510 is detailed and is dependent on the exact project design that is expected to be constructed or installed. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, though the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate significant air quality impacts.
23 In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any air quality environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed use, if approved, will be allowed on the subject site and will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project is not proposing a use which will create objectionable odors more obnoxious than the current surrounding non-residential uses. Therefore, there will be no impact related to odors.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the air quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

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
24 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
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 proposed project will not directly affect any sensitive, special status, or candidate species, nor would it modify any habitat that supports them. 25 The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species. The project site is currently vacant except for some scattered agricultural uses. There are a small number of scattered trees located in the disturbance area.

However, the presence of any special-status plant or wildlife species in the project disturbance area is highly unlikely.

Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 of MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan requires construction of a proposed project to avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special-status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any special-status species. If special-status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 of MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan requires that any direct or incidental take of any state or federally listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required.

Agency consultation through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2081 and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes must take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined through agency consultation.

Mitigation Measure MM BIO-4 of MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan requires projects within the Planning Area to avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey must be conducted to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest.

A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor.

With implementation of the MEIR mitigation measures discussed above, this impact would be less than significant.
26 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?
Riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife Service are not located on the subject property. In addition, no federally protected wetlands are located on the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts to riparian species or habitat or other sensitive wetland communities.

Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, home to special status plant and animal species, of importance in maintaining water quality or sustaining flows, etc.

Examples of natural communities of special concern in the San Joaquin Valley could include: open, ruderal/nonnative grassland habitat, which is infrequently disturbed, vernal pools and various types of riparian forest. No natural communities of special concern were identified on the project site. As such, there would be no impact related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. 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? No state or federally protected wetlands are located on the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wetlands. As such, there would be no impact related to wetlands.
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? Wildlife movement corridors are areas where wildlife species regularly and predictably move during foraging, or during dispersal or migration. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines. Such geographic and topographic features are absent from the project site. Additionally, due to the presence of developed lands and urban uses surrounding the subject property, there is limited potential for project related activities to have an impact on the movement of wildlife species or established wildlife corridors.

Compliance with the biological Mitigation Measures of MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan (i.e. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4), through preparation of a pre-construction biological survey prior to construction, would occur to determine if the project site supports any special-status species. If a special-status species is determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and 27 minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization. This is an existing standard and regulation that is enforced by the City of Fresno during the improvement/grading plan and/or building plan phase of a project.

There are some scattered trees located in the disturbance area. Since the project would be required to comply with Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code, this impact would be less than significant. 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?
No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the region pertain to natural resources that exist on the subject site or in its immediate vicinity.

As such, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the biological resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

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
28 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no structures which exist within the project area that are listed in the National or Local Register of Historic Places, and the subject site is not within a designated historic district. As such, this impact would be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist within the project area. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried archaeological resource may exist in the area and be obscured by development, fill, or other historic activities, leaving no surface evidence. Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the project, the measures within the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to address archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological and/or animal fossil material be encountered during project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Implementation of the MEIR mitigation measures would ensure this impact is less than significant.

In conclusion, with implementation of the MEIR Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures incorporated herein below, the project will not result in any cultural resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015. 29 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There is no evidence that cultural resources of any type (including historical, archaeological, paleontological, or unique geologic features) exist on the subject property. The project site is currently developed, and the area where the proposed storage addition and loading dock would be constructed is currently paved.

Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried site may exist in the area and be obscured by development, fill, or other historic activities, leaving no surface evidence.

Furthermore, previously unknown paleontological resources or undiscovered human remains could be disturbed during project construction.

Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the project, the measures within the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to address archaeological resources (i.e.

Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4), paleontological resources, and human remains will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological and/or animal fossil material be encountered during project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources.

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on March 1, 2021. The 30-day comment period ended on March 31, 2021. Both tribes did not request consultation.

Implementation of the MEIR mitigation measures would ensure this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.
30 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?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The project includes construction and operation of a park and soccer complex, which includes the demolition of the existing building complex located on the site. 31 The purpose of the proposed expansion to the existing site facilities is to consolidate the charging areas to a single location. The number of employees and work hours will not change. The production capability of the site would also not increase. According to the project applicant, the project would not increase the number of truck trips, vehicle trips, or other trips related to traffic and circulation.

The amount of energy used at the project site during project operation would directly correlate to the size of the proposed buildings, the energy consumption of associated technology, and outdoor lighting. Other major sources of proposed project energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during project and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction. However, since the proposed project would not to generate net new trips, but instead would redistribute existing trips (Kittelson & Associates, 2021), the project is not anticipated to generate net energy consumption from vehicles during project operation (in fact, the project would generate a net reduction in energy consumption from vehicles during project operation).

Moreover, since the proposed project would only be open from sunup to sundown, extensive use of on-site outdoor lighting would not be required.

The following discussion provides calculated levels of energy use expected for the proposed project, based on commonly used modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod and the California Air Resource Board’s EMFAC2017).

On-Road Vehicles (Operation)
As noted previously, according to the project applicant, the project would not generate a net increase to the number of vehicle trips during project operation.

Therefore, on-road vehicle energy usage and emissions as a result of project operation would not increase compared to the baseline condition.

On-Road Vehicles (Construction)
The proposed project would generate on-road vehicle trips during project construction (from construction workers and vendors). Estimates of vehicle fuel consumed were derived based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2021 gasoline MPG factors provided by EMFAC2017. For the purposes of simplicity, it was assumed that all vehicles used gasoline as a fuel source (as opposed to diesel fuel or alternative sources). Table 2, below, describes gasoline and diesel fuel used by on- road mobile sources during each phase of the construction schedule.

As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction of the proposed project would occur during the building construction phase. See Appendix A for a detailed calculation.
32 Table 2: On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase Construction
Phase
# of
Days
Total Daily
Worker
Trips(a)
Total Daily
Vendor
Trips(a)
Total
Hauler
Trips(a)
Gallons of
Gasoline
Fuel(b)
Gallons of
Diesel
Fuel(b)
Demolition 20 15 - 91 158 1,850
Site Preparation 10 18 - - 95 -
Grading 30 20 - - 316 -
Building
Construction
22 338 132 - 3,922 2,952
Paving 20 15 - - 158 -
Architectural
Coating
20 68 - - 717 -
Total N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,366 4,802
NOTE: (A) PROVIDED BY CALEEMOD. (B)SEE APPENDIX A. SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2); EMFAC2017.

Off-Road Vehicles (Construction)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of the proposed project. A non-exhaustive list of off-road constructive vehicles that may be used during the construction phase of the proposed project includes: cranes, forklifts, generator sets, welders, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed project (as provided by the CalEEMod output), and a CO2 to diesel fuel conversion factor (provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the proposed project would use a total of approximately 13,150 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles (during the site preparation and grading phases of the proposed project).

Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Conclusion
The proposed project would use energy resources for the operation of the building addition (e.g. electricity), for on-road vehicle trips associated with construction (e.g. electricity, gasoline, and diesel fuel), and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources.

The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the State-wide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E is expected to achieve at least a 50% mix of renewable energy resources by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed project. Other State-wide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the State-wide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel 33 economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

As a result, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would neither result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation, nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

In conclusion, energy impacts would be considered less than significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

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
34 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 35 iv. Landslides?
Fresno has no known active earthquake faults and is not in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. The immediate Fresno area has extremely low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Long Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems. The most serious threat to Fresno from a major earthquake in the Eastern Sierra would be flooding that could be caused by damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River.

Fresno is classified by the State as being in a moderate seismic risk zone, Category “C” or “D,” depending on the soils underlying the specific location being categorized and that location’s proximity to the nearest known fault lines. All new structures are required to conform to current seismic protection standards in the California Building Code. Seismic upgrade/retrofit requirements are imposed on older structures by the City’s Planning and Development Department as may be applicable to building modification and rehabilitation projects.

There are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the site.

The project site lacks topography or significant slopes. The project site mostly vacant with scattered agricultural uses, and the project is considered an infill development.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project would include disturbance of approximately 49.04 acres. The disturbance area is currently moderately disturbed and developed some scattered agricultural uses, including a small building complex. The flat topography of the site, coupled with the size and the developed nature of the site, would not result in the potential for soil erosion. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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 noted above, there are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the site. The existing topography is relatively flat with no apparent unique or significant land forms such as vernal pools. Development of the property requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno. A civil engineer or soils engineer registered in this state shall complete a Soils Investigation and Evaluation Report. The investigation will address the detail of the configuration, location, type of loading of the proposed structures and drainage plan. The report shall provide detailed recommendation for foundations, drainage, and other items. The 36 preparation of the Soils Investigation and Evaluation Report is an existing standard.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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?
No adverse environmental effects related to topography, soils or geology are expected as a result of this project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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 is currently served by City sanitary sewer facilities, and septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As noted in Section V, Cultural Resources, there are no known paleontological resources that exist within the project area. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a buried paleontological resource may exist in the area and be obscured by development, fill, or other historic activities, leaving no surface evidence. Therefore, due to the ground disturbing activities that will occur as a result of the project, the measures within the MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Checklist to address archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains (i.e. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4) will be employed to guarantee that should archaeological and/or animal fossil material be encountered during project excavations, then work shall stop immediately; and, that qualified professionals in the respective field are contacted and consulted in order to ensure that the activities of the proposed project will not involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Implementation of the MEIR mitigation measures would ensure this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
37 Mitigation Measures

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
Background
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three greenhouse gases have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2013).

Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into 38 space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The emissions from a single project will not cause global climate change, however, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of GHGs and climate change presented in this section is presented in terms of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to GHGs and climate change.

Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves. The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) GHG emissions sources across the globe and no project alone would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context and process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs. Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.

Significance Thresholds
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Guidance does not include a quantitative threshold of significance to use for assessing a project’s GHG emissions under CEQA. Moreover, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has not established such a threshold or recommended a method for setting a threshold for project-level analysis. In the absence of a consistent statewide threshold, a threshold of significance for analyzing the project’s GHG emissions was developed. The issue of setting a GHG threshold is complex and dynamic, especially in light of the California Supreme Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (referred to as the Newhall Ranch decision hereafter). The California Supreme Court ruling also highlighted the need for the threshold to be tailored to the specific project type, its location, and the surrounding setting. Therefore, the threshold used to analyze the project is specific to the analysis herein and the City retains the ability to develop and/or 39 use different thresholds of significance for other projects in its capacity as lead agency and recognizing the need for the individual threshold to be tailored and specific to individual projects.

The SJVAPCD provides guidance for addressing GHG emissions under CEQA. The SJVAPCD guidance regarding evaluating GHG significance notes that if a project complies with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions, then impacts related to GHGs would be less than significant. The applicable plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions for the proposed project is the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Additionally, the SJVAPCD requires quantification of GHG emissions for all projects which the lead agency has determined that an EIR is required. Although an EIR is not required for the proposed project, the GHG emissions are quantified below, followed by a consistency analysis with the Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as CH4 and N2O, from mobile sources and utility usage.

The proposed project’s short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions for buildout of the proposed project, were estimated using CalEEModTM (v.2016.3.2). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.
40 Short-Term Construction GHG Emissions
Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Metric Tons Per Year) Year Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2021 0.0000 256.7305 256.7305 0.0600 0.0000 258.2312
Maximum 0.0000 256.7305 256.7305 0.0600 0.0000 258.2312 SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2).

As presented in the table, maximum short-term annual construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the project are estimated to be 258.2312 MTCO2e (2021). These construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are comparatively much lower than emissions associated with operational phases of a project. Cumulatively, these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change.

Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions
The long-term operational emissions estimate for buildout of the proposed project, incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utility and water usage, and wastewater and solid waste generation.

Estimated GHG emissions associated with the buildout of the proposed project is summarized in Table 4. As shown in the following table, the annual GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would be approximately 35.6719 MTCO2e.

Table 4: Operational GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Category Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area 0.0000 0.00087 0.00087 0.0000 0.0000 0.00092
Energy 0.0000 12.2919 12.2919 0.00056 0.00011 12.3401
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.3228 0.0000 0.3228 0.0191 0.0000 0.7996
Water 0.0000 22.4434 22.4434 0.00101 0.00021 22.5313
Total 0.3228 34.7362 35.0589 0.0206 0.00032 35.6719
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2).

Fresno Council of Governments RTP/SCS
The Fresno Council of Governments adopted the RTP/SCS in July 2018. The RTP/SCS comprehensively assesses all forms of transportation available in Fresno County as well as travel and goods movement needs through 2042. The RTP/SCS is required by Senate Bill 375. The 2018 RTP reflects the federal directives embodied 41 in both the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991. These acts require that projects in RTPs be “constrained” to only those that can actually be delivered with reasonably expected funds, and that those projects help attain and maintain air quality standards. The RTP contains four main required elements that are discussed below. However, the Fresno Council of Governments RTP includes additional elements or chapters regarding the regional context of the RTP, public participation, environmental justice analysis and transportation performance management.

Chapter 2 of the RTP/SCS contains goals, objectives, and policies in order to address the transportation needs of the Fresno region and quantify regional needs in the 25- year planning horizon. One of the policies in Table 2-1A of the RTP/SCS aims to encourage infill development in areas that take advantage of remaining capacity in existing transportation facilities. The proposed project is considered an infill development. The purpose of the proposed expansion to the existing site facilities is to consolidate the charging areas to a single location. Another policy aims to provide a transit system that meets the public transportation needs of the service area. The project site is approximately 0.9 miles from a Fresno Area Express Route 26 bus stop (located at Butler Avenue / Chestnut Avenue). Route 26 has stops in the southeastern portion of the City Fresno. This route stops at or near the following points of interest:

Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno Pacific University, Fairgrounds, Mosqueda Community Center, Downtown Transit Center, Fresno Area Express Administrative Office, Tower District, Fresno High, Hamilton K-8, and Bullard High School. Therefore, the proposed project would be located in an area that is currently served by Fresno Area Express.

As demonstrated above, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the goals and strategies of the RTP/SCS.

Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City’s MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (see Appendix F-2 of the MEIR). The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan provides a comprehensive assessment of the benefits of these General Plan and Development Code Update policies along with existing plans, programs, and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the 42 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan includes an emission reduction target for demonstrating consistency with State GHG reduction targets.

The General Plan and MEIR rely upon a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that provides a comprehensive assessment of the benefits of city policies and proposed code changes, existing plans, programs, and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan demonstrates that even though there is increased growth, the City would still be reducing greenhouse gas emissions through 2020 and per capita emission rates drop substantially. The benefits of adopted regulations become flat in later years and growth starts to exceed the reductions from all regulations and measures. Although it is highly likely that regulations will be updated to provide additional reductions, none are reflected in the analysis since only the effect of adopted regulations is included.

The City’s General Plan designates the project area as Community Park (CP). The analysis included in the City’s General Plan EIR assumed that the site would be developed with community park uses. The project would not increase development beyond the level assumed for the site in the City’s General Plan EIR and the associated Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Because the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan analyzed the Fresno General Plan land use capacity, the GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project (i.e., approximately 35.7 MTCO2e during operation and approximately 258.2 MTCO2e during construction [2021]) would be less than anticipated in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

Conclusion
The short-term annual construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the project are estimated to be 258.2 MTCO2e (2021). As stated previously, shortterm construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed project. The annual operational GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would be approximately 35.7 MTCO2e. Additionally, the project would be generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Fresno Council of Governments RTP/SCS and the Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

The proposed project will not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any greenhouse gas emission environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan.
43 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
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
44 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The project is a park and soccer complex. The project itself will not generate or use hazardous materials in a manner outside health department requirements. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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?
As shown in historical aerial photographs available on Google Earth, the project site has been developed with scattered agricultural uses and a building complex since at least 1998.

According to GeoTracker, there is one site within 0.25-mile of the project site:
• USDA Agricultural Research (Site # T0601900555): This site is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site with a cleanup status of Completed – Case Closed as of April 4, 1996. This site is located approximately

0.25 miles north of the project site. The potential contaminant of concern was diesel. The cleanup oversight agencies for this site are Fresno County and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

No other hazardous sites are documented in the immediate project vicinity. 45 A Phase I Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project (Wallace & Kuhl Associates, 2020). The Phase I Site Assessment identified that there are no RECs in connection with the project site except the following:
• On-site concerns were noted from the mixing of agricultural chemicals adjacent to irrigation wells as reported by a USDA staff member in 1985. • On-site concerns were noted from the historical agriculture activities including the raising of vineyards and orchards and the potential for residues of historically applied persistent pesticides.
• On-site concerns were noted from the historical presence of structures on the northern project site parcel from at least 1937 to 2020 and on southern site parcel from at least 1937 to at least 1979 and the potential for residues of historically applied persistent pesticides (termiticides) and lead from leadbased paint to be present in surface soils in the vicinity of the structures. The concerns are noted from structures that were constructed before 1975 for lead and before 1988 for persistent pesticides.
• On-site concerns were noted regarding the petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils that were left in-place beneath two structures in Area A after the removal of USTs.

Based on the conclusions presented within the Phase I Site Assessment, it is recommended that the project implement and incorporate the following measures (as incorporated into Project-specific Mitigation Measure HAZ-1):
• Collect soil samples to evaluate for the potential presence of organochlorine pesticides, and arsenic related to the past agricultural operations at the site; • Collect soil samples from the vicinity of the historical structures to evaluate the potential presence of termiticides or lead from lead-based paint; • Abandon any irrigation wells and any other wells or septic systems that are uncovered during development activities in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations;
• Evaluate any soils uncovered during development activities that exhibit evidence of petroleum hydrocarbon impacts, such as staining or odors; • If USTs are discovered during future assessment activities, take the appropriate steps to remove.

Through implementation of these project-specific measures, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 nearest school, Ayer Elementary School, is located approximately 0.43 miles 46 north of the site. The project itself will not generate or use hazardous materials in a manner outside health departmentrequirements. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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? A Phase 1 Site Assessment has been prepared for the proposed project. There are no known existing hazardous material conditions on the property and the property is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Nevertheless, the project would be required to implement project-specific measures, as identified under Impact b).

Through implementation of these project-specific measures, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 project area is not located in an FAA-designated Runway Protection Zone, Inner Safety Zone and Sideline Safety Zone according to review of the Downtown Fresno Chandler Airport and Yosemite International Airport Existing Safety Zones Maps.

Based upon the goals of the proposed project, no potential interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan has been identified. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site would contain a total of five entry points, at full buildout (of both the norther and southern parcels). Emergency vehicles will be able to access the project site from any of these entry points. Project review for compliance with fire and life safety requirements are reviewed by both the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Services Section of the Planning and Development Department when a submittal for building plan review is made as required by the California Building Code.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The subject property is not located within any wildland fire hazard zones. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
47 Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hazards and hazardous materials related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

2. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the hazards and hazardous materials related mitigation measure as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated April 6, 2021.

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
48 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
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? Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non‐ stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics, Section 12-2304, Development Application, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Building Permit Review and Processing Timelines, outlines the City’s grading plan check process. The grading 49 plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:

1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the CBC.

2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.

3. Obtain approval of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.

Runoff resulting from the proposed new impervious surfaces, and construction and operation of the project would be subject to the City’s water quality standards and review process. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
On January 17, 2014, the Governor of California, proclaimed a State of Emergency in the State of California due to severe drought conditions. On April 25, 2014 and April 1, 2015, the Governor signed Executive Orders directing the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) to adopt emergency regulations to ensure urban water suppliers implement drought response plans to limit outdoor irrigation and other wasteful water practices. California Water Code Section 1058.5 grants the State Water Board the authority to adopt emergency regulations during a period when the Governor has issued a proclamation of emergency based upon drought conditions or in response to drought conditions that exist, or are threatened, in a critically dry year immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years.

On July 15, 2014, the State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation for urban water conservation requiring each urban water supplier to implement the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes restrictions on outdoor irrigation, which resulted in the City of Fresno implementing Stage 2 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

On May 5, 2015, the State Water Board adopted additional emergency regulations for urban water conservation, requiring the City of Fresno to reduce its water usage by 28% compared to 2013 and impose additional prohibitions on water use beginning June 1, 2015, through February 28, 2016. In 2015, the City of Fresno implemented additional water conservation measures resulting in 23% reduction in the City’s water usage in 2015 and 2016.

On August 29, 2016, the Governor signed into law SB 814, which required the City of 50 Fresno to define “excessive use” regarding water usage, and to establish a method to identify and discourage excessive water use.

California received record precipitation in the winter of 2017, resulting in mountain snowpack at 164% of the season average and on April 7, 2017, the Governor declared an end to California’s drought emergency for all but Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties in the state of California by Executive Order B-40-17. Executive Order B-40-17 directed the State Water Board to make permanent prohibitions on certain practices which do not conserve water.

On April 26, 2017, the State Water Board rescinded mandatory water conservation standards statewide, but left in effect prohibitions on certain water uses and required certain water conservation activities at all times in the City of Fresno comports with the Governor’s Executive Order. In October, 2017, the City of Fresno amended the FMC to update specific prohibitions against wasteful water use practices to comport with state regulations, established a new definition for excessive water use, updated outdoor watering restrictions based on drought stage declarations, and changed the enforcement fine schedule for violations of prohibited water use practices. The City of Fresno adopted further water conservation revisions to the FMC in April, 2019, defining Excessive Water Use for customers in single-family residences or multi-unit housing in which each unit is individually metered or sub-metered, as using potable water in excess of the maximum gallons per hour, depending on the City’s current Water Shortage Contingency Plan stage, during days or hours when outdoor irrigation is prohibited, more than one day during the monthly billing period, as recorded by the City. The maximum gallons per hour are: Stage 1 - 400 gallons per hour recommended.

Stage 2 - 400 gallons per hour. Stage 3 - 350 gallons per hour. Stage 4 - 300 gallons per hour. Fresno is one of the largest cities in the United States that still maintains a significant reliance on groundwater as part of its public water supply portfolio. Surface water treatment and distribution has been implemented in the northeastern part of the City since 2004 and in the southeastern part of the City in 2018, but the City is still subject to an EPA Sole Source Aquifer designation. While the aquifer underlying Fresno typically exceeds a depth of 300-feet and is capacious enough to provide adequate quantities of safe drinking water to the metropolitan area well into the twentyfirst century, groundwater degradation, increasingly stringent water quality regulations, and an historic trend of high consumptive use of water on a per capita basis (currently 205 gallons per day per capita), have resulted in a general decline in aquifer levels, increased cost to provide potable water, and localized water supply limitations.

The City’s groundwater aquifer has been documented by the State Department of Water Resources (Bulletin 118 - Interim Update 2016) to be critically over-drafted, and has been designated a high-priority basin for corrective action through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). In January 2020, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) filed the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) with the State of California.
51 Adverse groundwater conditions of limited supply and compromised quality have been well documented by planning, environmental impact report and technical studies over the past 20 years including the Master Environmental Impact Report No. 2012111015 for the Fresno General Plan, the MEIR 10130 for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, Final EIR No.10100, Final EIR No.10117 and Final EIR No. SCH 95022029 (Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan), et al. These conditions include water quality degradation due to contamination from 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene- dibromide (EDB), trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCE), nitrate, and from naturally occurring arsenic, iron, manganese, and radon concentrations; low water well yields in some parts of the City; limited aquifer storage capacity from overutilization; limited recharge activities; and, intensive urban or semi-urban development occurring up- gradient from the Fresno Metropolitan Area.

This mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project is tiered from MEIR SCH No. 2012111015) prepared for the Fresno General Plan, which contains measures to mitigate projects’ individual and cumulative impacts to groundwater resources and to reverse the groundwater basin’s overdraft conditions.

The City of Fresno is actively addressing these issues through citywide metering and updating water use targets and the water shortage contingency plan in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan, which has been adopted and the accompanying Final EIR (SCH #95022029) certified. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and the future needs of the metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and, provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. City water wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and distribution systems have been expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands and respond to groundwater quality challenges.

In response to the need for a comprehensive long-range water supply and distribution strategy, the Fresno General Plan recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as, the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno- Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City of Fresno 2015 UWMP. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies on order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and, provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities.

The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Figure 4-3 (incorporated by reference) illustrates the City of Fresno’s goals to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and 52 demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals the City is implementing a host of strategies, including:
• Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of FresnoYosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;
• Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigation District for treatment at the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and the Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and
• Recycle wastewater at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC6- d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan. It should be noted that significant investments towards recycling water have already been made, including a substantial amount of new recycled water improvements that are already in use.

The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and distribution systems shall be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in Fresno’s Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan, 2010 & 2015 UWMPs 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 utilization of surface water supplies through expansion of 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.

Until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of water for the City. In June 2004, the 30 Million Gallon Per Day (MGD) Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (“NESWTF”) began providing Fresno with water treated to drinking water standards and in May 2018, the 54 MGD Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (“SESWTF”) became operational. In order to meet demands anticipated by the growth implicit in the 2035 Fresno General Plan further construction of surface water treatments facilities and recycled water facilities will be required. Surface water is used to replace lost groundwater through Fresno’s intentional recharge program at the Cityowned Leaky Acres, Nielsen Recharge Facility, and smaller facilities in Southeast Fresno. Fresno holds contracts to surface water supplies from Millerton Lake and 53 contractual rights to surface water from Pine Flat Reservoir. In 2010, Fresno renewed its contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, which entitles the City to 60,000 acre-feet per year of Class 1 water into the extended future. This water supply has further increased the reliability of Fresno’s water supply.

Also, during the period 2005 to 2014, Fresno updated its Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan designed to ensure the Fresno metro area has a reliable water supply through 2025. The plan implements a conjunctive use program, combining groundwater, treated surface water, intentional recharge and an enhanced water conservation program.

The use of groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily as has historically been the case. The 2015 UWMP shows that groundwater pumped by the City has decreased from approximately 148,006 AF/year in 2008 to approximately 83,360 AF/year in 2015. With the 54-MGD SESWTF (expandable to 80-MGD) having come online since, further groundwater pumping reductions have been realized. The projected total estimated groundwater yield for the 2040 is approximately 148,900 AF/year, inclusive of intentional recharge (Table 6-3, 2015 UWMP). In order to meet future demand projections, the City is planning to rely on expanding their delivery and treatment of surface water supplies and groundwater recharge activities.

The City has been adding to and upgrading its water supplies through capital improvements, including adding pipelines to distribute treated surface water as previously discussed. Additionally, in 2009, the treatment capacity of the FresnoClovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) was improved. The City has recently been providing tertiary treatment at some of its wastewater treatment plants to supply tertiary treated recycled water for landscape irrigation to new growth areas and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Satellite Plant was developed to serve the Copper River development and golf course in the northern part of Fresno.

The RWRF produces recycled water of secondary treatment level that meets Title 22 California Code of Regulations and can be used to irrigate fields with alfalfa, silage corn, Sudangrass and other fiber crops not used for human consumption.

Approximately 12%-15% of the total acre- feet of wastewater that is treated at the reclamation facility goes for direct reuse to farmers leasing land within the RWRF boundaries or to neighboring farmers.

In addition, the General Plan policies require the City to maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage, and includes conservation programs such as landscaping standards for drought tolerance, irrigation control devices, leak detection and retrofits, water audits, public education and implementing US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation to maintain surface water entitlements.
54 The City also has implemented an extensive water conservation program which is detailed in Fresno’s current UWMP. The City implemented a residential water meter program; installing and metering water service for all single-family residential customers in the City by 2013. All residential customers are now metered. In terms of water conservation efforts, the recent completion of the residential meter installation project realized the single largest reduction of water use. Prior to initializing the meter installation project water use in the City was at a high of 168,122 AF/year in 2008 (Table 4-1, 2015 UWMP). At completion of the meter installation project water use dropped to 135,595 AF/year. Although implementation of this project occurred during the economic downturn, water use has remained at or below this value, except in 2013 when there was a noticeable jump in use.

Fresno continues to periodically update its water management plans to ensure the cost-effective use of water resources and continued availability of groundwater and surface water supplies. In addition, FMC Section 6-536 provides that the City Council may require all development not yet constructed to be subjected to the water findings procedure of the Woodward Park Community Plan, adopted by the Council on December 5, 1989, for determining if an adequate supply of water is available. In such situations the Council may impose conditions of approval deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or the Fire Chief which will ensure that an adequate supply of water is available at the time of occupancy of the development. These conditions of approval may include but are not limited to construction of facilities to enhance the supply or delivery of water to the development.

In accordance with the provisions of the Fresno General Plan and Master EIR No. 2012111015 mitigation measures, project specific water supply and distribution requirements must assure that an adequate source of water is available to serve the project. SGMA compliance requirements are incorporated into the water supply conditions of approval for the project.

The project includes construction and operation of a park and soccer complex on the approximately 49.04-acre project site. The project would include restrooms as well as outdoor irrigation systems for the grass turf soccer fields. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by West Yost. According to the WSA, the demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040, inclusive of development and operation of the proposed project.

Moreover, the City’s General Plan designates the project area as Community Park (CP). The analysis included in the City’s General Plan EIR assumed that the site would be developed with Community Park (CP) uses. The project would not increase development beyond the level assumed for the site in the City’s General Plan EIR.

Because the 2015 UWMP (adopted in June 2016) analyzed the Fresno General Plan land use capacity, the water demand resulting from the existing project site would not 55 be greater than anticipated in the UWMP. It should be noted that an updated UWMP is anticipated in mid- to late-2021.

The mitigation measures of the MEIR are incorporated herein by reference and are required to be implemented by the attached mitigation monitoring checklist. In summary, these mitigation measures equate to City of Fresno policies and initiatives aimed toward ensuring that the City has a reliable, long-range source of water through the implementation of measures to promote water conservation through standards, incentives and capital investments.

The Department of Public Utilities works with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District to utilize suitable FMFCD ponding (drainage) basins for the groundwater recharge program, and works with Fresno Irrigation District to ensure that the City’s allotment of surface water is beneficially used for intentional groundwater recharge.

Private development participates in the City’s ability to meet water supply goals and initiatives through payment of fees established by the city for construction of recharge facilities, the construction of recharge facilities directly by the project, or participation in augmentation/enhancement/enlargement of the recharge capability of Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District storm water ponding basins. While the proposed project may be served by conventional groundwater pumping and distribution systems, treated surface water supplies are also anticipated to serve the project, which would limit drawdown of groundwater aquifers, to protect groundwater aquifer recharge capabilities.

Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and the applicable mitigation measures of previously approved environmental review documents, as well as those mitigation measures included herein, will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes.

The proposed project would not result in new impervious surfaces and, as such, would not reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. The proposed project would have negligible effects to the overall infiltration capacity of the area because the proposed disturbance area is currently paved. Due to the project’s small size, nature and scope, is would not cause the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
56 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? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
The project site is mostly flat. Although new impervious surface would be added throughout portions of the project site, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The project site does not have a stream or river. The project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The storm drainage plan will be supported by engineering calculations to ensure that the project does not 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.

The developer will be required to provide improvements which will convey surface drainage to Master Plan inlets and which will provide a path for major storm conveyance. When development permits are issued, the subject site will be required to pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance.

Portions of the subject property may be adequately served with permanent drainage service through existing Master Plan facilities or required Master Plan facilities to be developed in conjunction with the proposed project. However, in areas where permanent drainage service will not be available, the District recommends temporary ponding facilities until permanent service is available through future Master Plan Facilities.

The Master Plan system has been designed such that during a two-year event flow will not exceed the height of the 6-inch curb. Should wedge curb (4.5-inch height) be used the same criteria shall apply whereby flow remains below the top of curb.

If surface water runoff or event flows exceed volumes for which the Master Plan drainage system is designed to accommodate and the existing Master Plan storm drainage facilities do not have capacity to serve the proposed land use to avoid flooding, then the developer will be required to mitigate the impacts of the increased runoff from the proposed use to a rate that would be expected if developed in accordance with the Master Plan (see Mitigation Measures HYD-5.1 through HYD- 57 5.5). The developer may either make improvements to the existing pipeline system to provide additional capacity or may use some type of permanent peak reducing facility in order to eliminate adverse impacts on the existing system. Should the developer choose to construct a permanent peak-reducing facility, such a system would be required to reduce runoff accordingly. Implementation of the mitigation measures may be deferred until time of development.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate of or amount of surface runoff that would result in flood on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Overall, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hydrology and water-quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021. 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:
v. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project would not impede or redirect flood flows. The project site is not in a location that is prone to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and is not at risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan are the two guiding documents for water quality and sustainable groundwater management in the project area. Consistency with the two plans is discussed below.
58 Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where known.

As discussed above, impacts related to water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, and City Municipal Code requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan
As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the Groundwater Sustainability Plan on January 28, 2020. It should be noted that, as previously described, FMC Section 6-536 provides that the City Council may impose conditions of approval deemed necessary by the Public Works Director or the Fire Chief which will ensure that an adequate supply of water is available at the time of occupancy of new development.

As discussed above, project implementation would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The proposed project water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year, and the project would not conflict with the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan. This impact would be less than significant. 59 Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the hydrology and water quality related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project site is located within the Fresno city limits and is adjacent primarily to existing residential uses and land previously used for agricultural purposes. The proposed park and soccer complex is consistent with the surrounding uses and would not physically divide an established community. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. 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 would require approval of a Development Permit. The proposed project site is designated and zoned for park uses. Upon approval, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation. The project would not require a rezone or General Plan amendment. The Community Park (CP) land use designation accommodates park and soccer complex uses such as those proposed by the project. 60 Fresno General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies
As proposed, the project will be consistent with the following Fresno General Plan goals:
• Increase opportunity, economic development, business, and job creation. • Make full use of existing infrastructure, and investment in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth.
• Promote orderly land use development in pace with public facilities and services needed to serve development.
• Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the City.

These Goals contribute to the establishment of a comprehensive city-wide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment in accordance with Objective LU-1 of the Fresno General Plan.

Policy UF-1-a promotes new development within the existing City limits. The project site is within the existing City limits. The park and soccer complex would be developed throughout the project site.

This project supports the above-mentioned goals and policies in that the intensity of the proposed development conforms to the applicable land use designation of the Fresno General Plan.

The project will not conflict with any conservation plans since it is not located within any conservation plan areas. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the region pertain to the natural resources that exist on the subject site or in its immediate vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

In conclusion, the proposed project would not result in any land use and planning environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015. 61 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
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 subject site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery; therefore, the project will not 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.

Impacts would be less than significant.
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? The subject site is not delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site; therefore, it will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource. Impacts would be less than significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
62 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the 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?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Generally, the three primary sources of substantial noise that affect the City of Fresno and its residents are transportation-related and consist of major streets and regional highways; airport operations at the Fresno Yosemite International, the FresnoChandler Downtown, and the Sierra Sky Park Airports; and railroad operations along the BNSF Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad lines.

In developed areas of the community, noise conflicts often occur when a noise 63 sensitive land use is located adjacent or in proximity to a noise generator. Noise in these situations frequently stems from on-site operations, use of outdoor equipment, uses where large numbers of persons assemble, and vehicular traffic. Some land uses, such as residential dwellings hospitals, office buildings and schools, are considered noise sensitive receptors and involve land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise.

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

Potential noise sources at the project site during project operation would occur primarily from nearby roadway traffic, as well as from on-site recreational activities, while noise during construction activities would occur due to construction-related roadway traffic as well as on-site off-road construction activities.

The City of Fresno Noise Element of the Fresno General Plan establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 60dB DNL for exterior noise levels in outdoor areas of noisesensitive land uses from 7am to 7pm. Additionally, the Fresno General Plan establishes a criterion of 55 dB DNL for exterior noise levels in outdoor areas of noisesensitive land uses from 7pm to 10pm. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. However, the project doesn’t propose sensitive land uses. Furthermore, the Noise Element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB DNL. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

There are existing sensitive receptors (i.e., residential receptors) that surround the project site to the north, east, west, and south. A Noise Impact Study for the proposed project was prepared by MD Acoustics on January 14, 2021. The existing noise environment due to traffic noise was calculated using the ADT levels provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and the FHWA traffic noise model. Additional on-site noise sources were also modeled. The existing level is 54.2 dBA Leq for daytime and 55.4 dBA CNEL. The expected ambient noise level without the project in 2035 is expected to be 56.4 dBA Leq for daytime and 57.6 dBA CNEL.

The increase in traffic noise to surrounding sites as a result of the project is 0.7 dBA.

It takes a change of 3 dBA or more to hear a perceptible difference.

The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN 3D acoustical modeling software. This worst-case scenario models all operational noise operating 64 at the same time for the full duration of an hour. The model utilizes the sound level data for the project events, which includes parking, sports, and recreational activities.

These activities together constitute the project’s daytime levels. There is an existing wall on the southern half of the houses to the east of the project site, which was modeled at 6 feet tall.

MD Acoustics found that the combined noise levels during project operation do not exceed the City’s noise limit given in the daytime and evening ambient definitions and by Section 10-106 of the Municipal Code of +5 the ambient level. Therefore, the project’s impact is less than significant during project operation.

Short-term Noise Impacts
The construction of a project involves short-term construction related noise. The Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) allows for construction noise in excess of standards if it complies with the section below (Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 10-109 – Exemptions). It states that the provisions of Article 1 – Noise Regulations of the FMC shall not apply to:

Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Thus, construction activity would be exempt from City of Fresno noise regulations, as long as such activity is conducted pursuant to an applicable construction permit and occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., excluding Sunday. Nevertheless, the further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the Noise Impact Study identified that the following additional actions should be taken during project construction (as provided within Mitigation Measure NOISE-1):
• During construction, all construction equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices;
• Equipment shall be located in staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction;
• Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use; • Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

With implementation of the above actions (as part of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1), short-term construction impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than 65 significant.

Long Term Noise Impacts
The proposed project includes development of a park and soccer complex on a site that currently contains scattered agricultural uses. The immediate vicinity consists of existing and planned residential uses. Although the project will create additional activity in the area, the project will be required to comply with all noise policies from the Fresno General Plan and noise ordinance from the FMC. No project-specific mitigation for noise during project operation is required.

Conclusion
Although the project will create additional activity in the area, the project will be required to comply with the project-specific Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, as well as the noise ordinance of the Fresno Municipal Code. Through implementation of this measure, and compliance with the Fresno Municipal Code, the project would neither generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of relevant standards, nor generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the noise related mitigation measure as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated April 6, 2021.
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 project area is not located in an FAA-designated Runway Protection Zone, Inner Safety Zone and Sideline Safety Zone according to review of the Downtown Fresno Chandler Airport and Yosemite International Airport Existing Safety Zones Maps. This impact would be less than significant.
66 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 proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in this area. The surrounding area is mostly developed or will be developed with residential uses. The project site has been planned by the Fresno General Plan for Community Park (CP) uses, which is consistent with the intended use of the project site by the proposed project. The intensity of the proposed project was included in the Fresno General Plan.

The impact would be less than significant given that development is occurring at a scale and scope designated by the Fresno General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project will not displace any existing housing. The project will not result in displacement of any persons as there is no residential development on the subject property. Therefore, no impact would occur.
67 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
The subject property is located approximately 0.94 air miles (or 1.55 road miles) southeast from Fire Station 15.

The City of Fresno Fire Department operates its facilities under the guidance set by the National Fire Protection Association in NFPA 1710, the Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency 68 Medical Operations, and Special Operation to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 sets standards for turnout time, travel time, and total response time for fire and emergency medical incidents, as well as other standards for operation and fire service. The Fire Department has established the objectives set forth in NFPA 1710 as department objectives to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare.

Demand for fire service generated by the project is within planned services levels of the Fire Department and the applicant will pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained.

According to the Fresno General Plan MEIR, development impact fees are currently collected for the provision of capital facilities for fire facilities that will provide for future facilities as the City’s population increases. Recognizing that there would be an increased demand for fire and emergency medical response, the General Plan Update includes several policies to support the activities of the Fresno Fire Department. The policies and objectives from the General Plan will ensure that the proposed project does not significantly affect fire protection.

Project review for compliance with fire and life safety requirements for the proposed storage addition and relocated charging facilities and the intended use are reviewed by both the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Services Section of the Planning and Development Department when a submittal for building plan review is made as required by the California Building Code. This impact would be less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
City police protection services are available to serve the proposed project with no new facilities required for police protection. Demand for police protection service generated by the project is within planned services levels of the Police Department and the applicant will pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained. This impact would be less than significant. iii. Schools?
The proposed project would not impact the District’s student classroom capacity. The developer will pay appropriate school fees at time of building permits. This impact would be less than significant.
iv. Parks?
The proposed project is a park project, providing additional park capacity for residents of the City of Fresno and the surrounding region. Demand for parks generated by the project is within planned services levels of the City of Fresno 69 Parks and Community Services Department and the applicant will pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained. This impact would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities?
The proposed project does not include uses that would increase the use of other public facilities in the area, such as library or other civic services. The proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in this area. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the public service related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

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
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?
70 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 is a park facility, adding existing park capacity to the City of Fresno and surrounding region. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce the potential physical deterioration of existing recreation facilities in the nearby region.

Development of the project would not cause an adverse physical effect on the environment not already disclosed elsewhere throughout this document.

The applicant will pay any required impact fees at the time building permits are obtained or receive credits for construction as may be memorialized within a development agreement. Therefore, the project would not 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, or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

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
71 DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The proposed project includes the development of a park and soccer complex. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was developed by Kittelson & Associates in January 2021. The TIS identified describes that, as a recreational facility, development of the project would result in a net decrease on vehicle miles travelled (VMT), since it would redirect existing traffic that would otherwise travel farther distances to alternative existing recreational facilities. Overall, the TIS identified that the project would not generate net new trips, but instead would redistribute existing trips. The Project complies with policies outlined in the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan, including by reducing VMT through infill development (General Plan Policy MT2-c), and by ensuring pedestrian safety (General Plan Policy MT-5-d; ATP Goal 1).

Additionally, the TIS identified that the project is not anticipated to decrease the performance of transit buses or safety of transit facilities. Transit service is not expected to be impacted since the project would not cause transit demand to exceed capacity and traffic operations at study intersections used by transit vehicles would not be significantly impacted.

Proposed roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian plans will not be impacted by the new development, and adequate right-of-way will be provided to complete potential roadway widening and new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Class II bike lanes are currently present intermittently along Peach Avenue, with the exception of the corridor immediately adjacent to the Project. The City of Fresno’s Active Transportation Plan includes a planned Class II bikeway along Peach Avenue from North Avenue to Kings Canyon Road. The project is not expected to impact the City’s plan to install bicycle facilities along this corridor because the project is not proposing off-site improvements.

The Project site is required to provide adequate access and amenities for bicyclists, including bicycle parking. The Fresno municipal code (Section 15-2429) states the required number of short and long-term bicycle parking spaces for various land uses.

Parks and Open Space classifications are not required to provide long-term spaces (for visitors staying longer than two hours) but are required to provide short-term spaces to be determined during project review. The City of Fresno will determine requirements for bicycle amenities and bicycle parking, during the final review of the site plan and development of the conditions of approval.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant relative to this topic. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
72 Vehicle Miles Traveled:

Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA 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, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.

The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, 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 (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. The project does not meet any of the adopted screening criteria as identified in the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. For example, since the project would generate approximately 872 ADT (as identified in the TIS), the project would not meet the screening criteria of generating 500 average daily vehicles (ADT) or less. The remaining other adopted screening criteria do not apply to a regional park project.

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against VMT thresholds of significance, as determined by the City. The Fresno VMT Thresholds document includes thresholds of significance for 73 development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans. These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds describes that, in general, the method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.

However, although the adopted threshold of reducing VMT by 13% applies to residential, office, and retail uses, the proposed project is a regional park and soccer complex project.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document identifies that the City may develop thresholds for other land uses that are not residential, office, and retail uses. Specifically, with regard to the lead agency developing an alternative VMT threshold for other land use project types, page 25 of the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document identifies that:
“One approach is to review the City’s General Plan and/or the Fresno COG RTP/SCS and identify whether the implementation of the plan would result in a reduction of VMT and GHGs. If it does, the City may conclude the implementation of the plan, including all the other land use types will achieve the regional climate change goals. Therefore, consistency with the plan and no net change in VMT…for the other land use types is a rational threshold.”
The project does not include either a General Plan Amendment or a zoning change.

Additionally, the project is consistent with what was analyzed in the most recent RTP/SCS (i.e Fresno COG’s 2018 RTP/SCS), since the RTP/SCS relied on data from the existing City of Fresno General Plan to develop its modeling.

The RTP/SCS PEIR identifies that:
“Compared to 2005 levels, the 2018 RTP/SCS will result in a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 2020 and a 10 percent reduction by 2035; thereby meeting SB 375 emission reduction targets.” Additionally, the RTP/SCS PEIR identifies that future GHG emissions per capita and VMT per capita in the region would decrease by 10% and 7% by 2035, respectively, compared with 2005 levels. Further, overall, the 2018 RTP/SCS PEIR identifies that the 2018 RTP/SCS would meet CARB per capita emission targets set pursuant to the Updated SB 375 reduction targets by achieving the 11% (2020) and 17% (2035) per capita reductions.

Therefore, since the project is consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan and the Fresno COG RTP/SCS, and the Fresno COG RTP/SCS PEIR identifies that implementation of the plan would achieve the regional climate change goals, it is reasonable for the lead agency to utilize a ‘no net increase to VMT’ approach as the applicable VMT threshold for determining whether this project would generate a significant VMT impact.
74 Therefore, the City of Fresno has determined that the appropriate VMT threshold for this project (i.e. a regional parks project) is ‘no net increase in VMT’, consistent with the methodology undertaken with the project TIS developed by Kittelson & Associates.

As described in the TIS, since the Project includes both a regional park and a soccer complex, VMT was analyzed for two separate trip types – vehicles traveling to the nearest regional park and vehicles traveling to the nearest park with soccer facilities. The redistribution of recreational trips was analyzed by calculating changes in average trip length to (1) the nearest regional park and (2) the nearest park with a soccer field.

The addition of a new regional park and soccer complex at the project site would result in a decrease in VMT for both the regional park and the soccer complex. Table 5 shows how the average trip length for a regional park trip or a soccer field trip would change with the project. Since the project is assumed not to generate net new trips, but instead would redistribute existing trips, a decrease in the average trip length would also result in a decrease in VMT.

The reduction in VMT resulting from trips to the nearest park with a football or soccer field is much smaller than that for regional parks. Because there is a much higher number of existing parks with football or soccer fields (34), the addition of the new park would have a smaller effect on trip re-routing and distance.

Table 5: Changes to VMT
Park Category/Scenario Average Trip Distance (Miles)
Regional Parks
Existing 5.00
Existing + New Park 3.90
Difference -1.11
Parks with Soccer or Football Fields
Existing 1.54
Existing + New Park 1.53
Difference -0.01
SOURCE: Southeast Fresno Regional Park, Transportation Impact Study (February 2021) As shown in Table 5, the project would reduce VMT compared to the existing scenario, for both park categories/scenarios modelled.

Overall, based on the City of Fresno’s VMT Thresholds, the Project would be assumed to have a significant impact related to VMT if it would cause a net increase in regional VMT. The total number of recreational park trips in Fresno is not anticipated to increase; instead, recreational trips would be diverted from other parks, on average. The average trip lengths between residential areas in Fresno and regional park and soccer field destinations were computed by Kittelson & Associates in the TIS with and without the project. Based on this analysis, the average trip lengths were found to decrease as a 75 result of the project. Since average trip length would decrease and there would be no net new vehicle trips as a result of the project, there would be no significant impact as the total regional VMT would decrease as a result of the project. Therefore, consistent with the “no net increase in VMT” threshold for this project, this impact would be less than significant.
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 project does not propose modifications to an existing land use or zoning designation, and therefore does not represent an incompatible use. The project does not propose any off-site improvements to the local transportation network that would result in sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other hazards.

The design of the proposed internal drive aisles, access driveways, and other circulation improvements would be required to adhere to the City of Fresno Fire Department’s design standards which are imposed on project developments by the State and City’s Fire Department during the building plan check and development review process.

Since the project is not incompatible with surrounding land uses, there are no offsite improvements, and all on-site improvements would be made adhering to the latest design standards for the City of Fresno preventing hazardous conditions, the project would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. This impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Emergency response requires a balance of emergency response time and evacuation needs with other community concerns, such as urban design and traffic calming. To address emergency and fire access needs, the site improvements would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable CDE and the City of Fresno Fire Department design standards for emergency access (e.g., minimum lane width and turning radius). For example, the driveways would be designed to meet the minimum width requirements of the City of Fresno Fire Department to allow for the passing of emergency vehicles.

Since adequate emergency access will be required per the local fire code and the site plans reviewed by the local fire officials as part of the design review, the project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures would be required. This impact would be less than significant. 76 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
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of 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.

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:
77 i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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 California 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 or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a) (1-2)).

Additional information may also be available from the California NativeAmerican Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) A certified letter was mailed to the above-mentioned tribes on March 1, 2021. The 30- day comment period ended on March 31, 2021. Both tribes did not request consultation. The project site is currently developed, and the area where the proposed building addition would be constructed is currently paved. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations as well as the mitigation measures of the Fresno General Plan MEIR will require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional.

Implementation of the MEIR mitigation measures would ensure this impact is less than significant.
78 Mitigation Measures

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
79 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed project would require construction of new water infrastructure for irrigation of the planned grass soccer fields, which would connect to the existing utility infrastructure. Additionally, the project will include connections for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The installation of this infrastructure will not require any major upsizing or other offsite construction activities that would cause a significant impact. The new infrastructure would be connected to existing infrastructure that is currently on the project site.

Restrooms would be located on site. Therefore, use of the project site will generate wastewater containing human waste, which is required to be conveyed and treated by the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility. An onsite wastewater treatment system is not required or proposed. The proposed project would be connected to the existing sewer mains along nearby roadways, and would pay any additional required connection and sewer facility fees to provide for reimbursement of preceding investments in sewer trunks to connect this site to a publicly owned treatment works.

The General Plan MEIR concludes that impacts associated with wastewater treatment facilities and capacity resulting from buildout of the General Plan, including the proposed project site, would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures USS-1 (which requires development and implementation of a wastewater master plan update), USS-2 (which requires evaluation of the wastewater system and constructionof expansions at the Regional Facility and NFWRF), and USS-3 (which requires evaluation of the wastewater system and construction of a wastewater treatment facility within the Southeast Development Area). The project site is not within the Southeast Development Area.
80 Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed under the Hydrology and Water Quality section. Storm drainage facilities would be developed as required. The grading plan would be submitted to the Flood Control District for review prior to final development approval.

The proposed project would be 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. Overall, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The City’s General Plan designates the project area as Community Park (CP). The analysis included in the City’s General Plan EIR assumed that the site would be developed with park uses. The project would not increase development beyond the level assumed for the site in the City’s General Plan EIR. Because the recently adopted 2015 UWMP analyzed the Fresno General Plan land use capacity, the water demand resulting from the existing project site would be less than anticipated in the UWMP. Moreover, the WSA prepared for the project identified that there is sufficient water supply to meet project water demand, under all studied conditions (West Yost, 2021).

The project includes restroom facilities as well as irrigation for the grass soccer fields.

There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Overall, this impact would be less than significant.
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?
The project includes restroom facilities as well as irrigation for the grass soccer fields.

The proposed project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Overall, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
81 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 (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site, Site Solid Waste Information System [SWIS] Number 10-AA-0009) located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman.

The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Additionally, the City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10‐AA‐0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.

Due to the nature of the proposed project, a limited amount of solid waste would be generated by the project. The American Avenue Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the project. The project would be required to comply with applicable State and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. Overall, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the utilities and service systems related mitigation measures as identified in the attached MEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated April 6, 2021.

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
82 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
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
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. Although this CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or Very High FHSZ, out of an abundance of caution, these checklist questions are analyzed below.

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is currently connected to an existing network of City streets. At full buildout of the project, there would be a total of six ingress/egress points. These access points would be available during an emergency. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than 83 significant.

2. 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 risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The project site is located in an area that is predominately urban, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildfire.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

3. 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 includes development of infrastructure (water) required to support the proposed building addition and charging area. The project site is surrounded by existing and future urban development. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

4. 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?
A grading plan would be submitted to the Flood Control District for review prior to final development approval. The grading plan would ensure proper construction of storm drainage infrastructure to control runoff and prevent flooding, erosion, and sedimentation.

Additionally, the project site is located within FEMA Zone X (un-shaded), indicating that the site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone. Further, because the site is essentially flat and located in an existing urbanized area of the City, downstream landslides would not occur.

Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e., cut and fill). The project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide in the project site is 84 essentially non-existent.

Overall, this impact would be less than significant.

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
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
85 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 proposed project is considered to be proposed at a size and scope which is neither a direct or indirect detriment to the quality of the environment through reductions in habitat, populations, or examples of local history (through either individual or cumulative impacts).

The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or reduce the habitat of wildlife species and will not threaten plant communities or endanger any floral or faunal species. Furthermore, the project has no potential to eliminate important examples of major periods in history. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The cumulative analysis for the project is based primarily on the Fresno General Plan and the Fresno General Plan MEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The Fresno General Plan anticipated regional growth based on land use plans and development projects throughout the region. The CEQA Guidelines provide multiple provisions for streamlining the environmental review of subsequent projects that are 1) consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, as described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, or 2) later projects consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance for which an EIR was prepared, as described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and is allowed to limit this Initial Study’s analysis of cumulative impacts as provided by both CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152.

Because the project does not have any peculiar or unique components that would result in a contribution to cumulative impacts that would be greater than those analyzed for the project site as part of the General Plan MEIR, and because the project proposes park uses for the project site evaluated in the General Plan MEIR, the project would not result in increased impacts to the cumulative topics disclosed 86 in the City’s General Plan MEIR. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study, the proposed park and soccer complex would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The construction phase would be mitigated sufficient such that no sensitive receptors are substantially adversely impacted; additionally, the construction effects are temporary and are not substantial. The operational phase air emissions and noise would also be mitigated such that it would not cause a substantial adverse impact on sensitive receptors. Therefore, the operational phase of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist for EA No. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

INCORPORATING MEASURES FROM THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MEIR) CERTIFIED FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (SCH No. 2012111015) A - Incorporated into Project
B - Mitigated
C - Mitigation in Progress
D - Responsible Agency Contacted
E - Part of City-wide Program
F - Not Applicable
The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Fresno is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Page 1 ends

This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC). It was certified as part of the Fresno City Council’s approval of the MEIR for the Fresno General Plan update (Fresno City Council Resolution 2014-225, adopted December 18, 2014).

Letter designations to the right of each MEIR mitigation measure listed in this Exhibit note how the mitigation measure relates to the environmental assessment of the above-listed project, according to the key found at right and at the bottoms of the following pages:

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
Aesthetics:

AES-1. Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Public Works
Department
(PW) and
Development &
Resource
Management
Dept. (DARM)
X X
Aesthetics (continued):

MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 2 ends

AES-2: Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits

DARM X X
AES-3: Lighting systems for non-residential uses, not
including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
DARM X
AES-4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0
horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

Verification comments:

Prior to issuance
of building
permits
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 3 ends

Aesthetics (continued):

AES-5: Materials used on building facades shall be nonreflective.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
Air Quality:

AIR-1: Projects that include five or more heavy-duty truck deliveries per day with sensitive receptors located within 300 feet of the truck loading area shall provide a screening analysis to determine if the project has the potential to exceed criteria pollutant concentration based standards and
thresholds for NO2 and PM2.5. If projects exceed screening criteria, refined dispersion modeling and health risk
assessment shall be accomplished and if needed, mitigation measures to reduce impacts shall be included in the project to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. Mitigation
measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 4 ends

Air Quality (continued):

AIR-2: Projects that result in an increased cancer risk of 10 in a million or exceed criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards shall implement site-specific measures that reduce toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure to reduce excess cancer risk to less than 10 in a million. Possible control measures include but are not limited to:
• Locate loading docks and truck access routes as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible considering site design limitations to comply with other City design standards. • Post signs requiring drivers to limit idling to 5 minutes or less • Construct block walls to reduce the flow of emissions toward sensitive receptors
• Install a vegetative barrier downwind from the TAC source that can absorb a portion of the diesel PM emissions
• For projects proposing to locate a new building containing sensitive receptors near existing sources of TAC emissions, install HEPA filters in HVAC systems to reduce TAC emission levels exceeding risk thresholds.
• Install heating and cooling services at truck stops to eliminate the need for idling during overnight stops to run onboard systems.
(continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 5 ends

Air Quality (continued):

AIR-2 (continued from previous page)
• For large distribution centers where the owner controls the vehicle fleet, provide facilities to support alternative fueled trucks powered by fuels such as natural gas or bio-diesel • Utilize electric powered material handling equipment where feasible for the weight and volume of material to be moved.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
AIR-3: Require developers proposing projects on ARB’s list of projects in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook) warranting special consideration to prepare a cumulative health risk assessment when sensitive receptors are located within the distance screening criteria of the facility as listed in the ARB Handbook.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 6 ends

Air Quality (continued):

AIR-4: Require developers of projects containing sensitive receptors to provide a cumulative health risk assessment at project locations exceeding ARB Land Use Handbook
distance screening criteria or newer criteria that may be developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
AIR-5: Require developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD to prepare an odor
impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City to the extent
needed to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 7 ends

Biological Resources:

BIO-1: Construction of a proposed project should avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special-status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any specialstatus plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any specialstatus species. If special-status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and
minimization measures shall be incorporated into the
construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval

DARM X X
BIO-2: Direct or incidental take of any state or federally listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be
required. Agency consultation through the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2081 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10
permitting processes must take place prior to any action that (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 8 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-2 (continued from previous page)
may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
BIO-3: Development within the Planning Area should avoid, where possible, special-status natural communities and
vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special-status natural community or suitable habitat for special-status species, compensatory habitat-based
mitigation is required under CEQA and the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). Mitigation will consist of preserving on-site habitat, restoring similar habitat or purchasing off-site credits from an approved mitigation bank.

Compensatory mitigation will be determined through
consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio will be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special-status natural communities to a less than significant (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 9 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-3 (continued from previous page):
level. Agreed-upon mitigation ratios will depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special-status species. The specific mitigation for project level impacts will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
BIO-4: Proposed projects within the Planning Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species
protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey must be conducted to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500-feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval
and during
construction
activities

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 10 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-4 (continued from previous page):
may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
BIO-5: If a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community with potential to occur in the Planning Area, compensatory habitat-based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must
involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of offsite mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community. Mitigation must be
conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat-based mitigation will be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case-bycase basis.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 11 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-6: Project impacts that occur to riparian habitat may also result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. CDFW and/or USACE consultation, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway, shall be implemented.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
BIO-7: Project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a specialstatus natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special-status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. Project impacts to special-status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific specialstatus species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 12 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-8: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the
impacted wetland.

Verification comments:

Prior to
development
project approval
DARM X
BIO-9: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and
construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and (continued on next page)
Prior to
development
project approval;
but for long-term
operational
BMPs, prior to
issuance of
occupancy

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 13 ends

Biological Resources (continued):

BIO-9 (continued from previous page):
incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring projectrelated impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
Cultural Resources:

CUL-1: If previously unknown resources are encountered
before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities

DARM X X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 14 ends

Cultural Resources (continued):

CUL-1 (continued from previous page)
recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these.

Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-germ preservation to allow future scientific study.

Verification comments:
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.

If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric (continued on next page)
Prior to
commencement
of, and during,
construction
activities
DARM X
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 15 ends

Cultural Resources (continued):

CUL-2 (continued from previous page)
archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.

Appropriate measures for significant 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 prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided (continued on next page)
[see previous
page]
[see previous
page]
MEIR MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR EA NO. P21-00726 April 6, 2021

MITIGATION MEASURE WHEN

IMPLEMENTED

COMPLIANCE

VERIFIED BY A B C D E F
A - Incorporated into Project C - Mitigation in Process E - Part of City-Wide Program B - Mitigated D - Responsible Agency Contacted F - Not Applicable

Page 16 ends

Fresno City CouncilOctober 10, 2024

Fresno City Council
October 10, 2024