1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Checklist Form for:
911 Emergency Call Center (Development Permit No. P23-04199)
1. Project Title:
911 Emergency Call Center (Development Permit No. P23-04199)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mike Mooneyham, Licensed Professional Engineer
City of Fresno
Capital Projects Department
(559) 621-8623
4. Project Location:
The project site encompasses approximately 1.25 acres in the eastern portion of the City of Fresno Municipal Service Center (MSC) at 1515 El Dorado Street in the city of Fresno, California (Figure 1).
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Fresno City Council
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
6. General and Community Plan Land Use Designation:
General Plan: Light Industrial
Community Plan: Downtown Community Plan Area
7. Zoning:
Existing: Light Industrial (IL)
Proposed: Light Industrial (IL)
2 8. Description of Project:
The City of Fresno (City) is proposing the construction of a new 12,072-square-foot 911 Emergency Call Center for the Fresno Police Department on a 1.25 -acre project site located in the eastern portion of the City’s MSC (see Figures 1 and 2). The project site was created by Lot Line Adjustment No. 2024- 03 that was approved by the Fresno County Recorder on April 18, 2024.
The proposed emergency call center would consist of a single- story building with a large call center space, office space for managers and supervisors, a conference room, a training room, breakrooms, restrooms, an exercise and fitness room, a server room, an electrical room, and an outdoor courtyard (Figure 3). The project also includes the construction of associated site improvements, including construction of a 67- vehicle parking lot with two electrical vehicle (EV) spaces and eight EV - capable spaces,
construction of a 10- foot-tall concrete block wall along the eastern and southern perimeters of the project site, and installation of curbs, utility extensions, an emergency diesel generator, and landscaping (Figure 4).
Construction activities would result in approximately 1.25 acres of ground disturbance, including approximately 121 cubic yards of cut and 1,372 cubic yards of fill (approximately 1,251 cubic yards of net fill). Construction activities would require the demolition of existing pavement and associated on-site components. The project would also require the removal of 15 existing trees. Construction activities are expected to occur over a period of 14 months beginning in January 2025.
The proposed emergency call center would be operational 24 hours a day, every day of the calendar year ,
and would be operated and maintained by the Fresno Police Department. Operation of the emergency call center would involve transferring existing operations (i.e., number of employees) from the police department. It is anticipated that future operation of the emergency call center would generate 30 to 35 new employment opportunities.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North Light Industrial Light Industrial Light Industrial East Light Industrial Light Industrial Light Industrial South Light Industrial Light Industrial Light Industrial West Light Industrial Light Industrial Light Industrial
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
N/A
3 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State of California 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 California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, before public distribution of the document, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tri be that is either included in or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resources as a Tri bal 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, including Table Mount ain, Millerton, Big Sandy, Cold Springs, and Squaw Valley; 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 (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) per PRC Section 5097.96 and the Californ
ia Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC. The City mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on March 11, 2024
, which included the required 90- day time
period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on April 10, 2024. One letter response was received from Robert Pennell, Tribal Cultural Resources Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria, in a letter dated March 28, 2024 , stating that they
“ . . . Decline participation at this time but would appreciate being notified in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified.” All other tribes that were contacted declined consultation.
4 Figure 1. Project Location Map.
5 Figure 2. Overall Site Plan.
6 Figure 3. Floor Plan.
7 Figure 4. Project Site Plan.
8 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:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required. ___ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 9 ___ 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.
Mike Mooneyham, Licensed Professional Engineer Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. For purposes of this I nitial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation developed specifically for an individual project.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply 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.
December 2, 2024
10 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 describ e 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 tiering or another 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 another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a ref erence to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
11 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
c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. The City’s approved Fresno General Plan 1 identifies
six locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points that provide distant views of features such as the San Joaquin River to the north and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. The project site is not located within any of the scenic vista points identified in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the
1 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. Adopted December 18. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp_Consolidated-GP-10-13- 2022_compressed.pdf. Accessed February 2024.
12 proposed project would not significantly affect or block a potentially scenic vista in the city. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Mapping System,
2 there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the city of Fresno. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of State Route 180, located approximately 7 miles east of the city, and a portion of State Route 168, located approximately 5 miles east of city. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the city in Madera County. Since there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways in close proximity to the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway ; therefore, no impact would occur.
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 site is located in an urbanized area and consists entirely of an existing parking lot within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. Surrounding land uses include the MSC in the IL zone district to the north and west, industrial land uses in the IL zone district to the south, and undeveloped land in the IL zone district to the east. The project site and surrounding area are characterized by relatively flat topography. There are scattered ornamental trees located along the existing roadway. There are no surface water features located within or adjacent to the project site.
The proposed project would result in the construction of a new 12,072- square-foot building in the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. The proposed building would be consistent with the level and scale of existing surrounding development and would not introduce new architectural features or other components that could alter the existing visual character of the project site and surrounding area. Therefore, the project is not expected to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project site is located in an urbanized area subject to preexisting exterior lighting from surrounding developments. The project would result in a marginal increase in
2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Scenic Highways: California State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Acce ssed January 2024. 13 outdoor lighting within the project area. New outdoor lighting would be required to comply with Section 15- 2015 ( Outdoor Lighting and Illumination ) of the City’s Municipal Code, used for illumination purposes only, and pointed downward to avoid light spillover to surrounding land uses. Based on compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would not create a new source of light and glare, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
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 (Farm -
land), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monito-
ring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The entire project site and surrounding area is underlain by land designated by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
3 as Urban and Built -Up Land. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The project site and surrounding area are located in the IL zone district. The project site is not within the Agriculture zone district and is not subject to a Williamson Act
3 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 2024. 15 contract. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The project site is within the IL zone district and is not within forest land, timberland, or timberland production land use or zoning designations . Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the zoning, or cause rezoning of, designated forest land, timberland, or timberland production, and no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Please refer to Impact Discussion II .c). The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest uses because the site is not forested nor is it located near a forested area. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to Impact Discussions II .a) and II.c). The project site is located in an existing urbanized area and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. A IR QUALITY – W here available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a region, county, or city classified as a non- attainment area.
The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and state air quality standards. The city of Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
The SJVAB is
designated as Nonattainment-Extreme for the 8 -hour ozone standard, Maintenance- Serious for the particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and Nonattainment -Moderate for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) standard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the SJVAB is designated Nonattainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards and the PM10 and PM2.5 standards.
To bring the SJVAB into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard
4 in December 2022 to satisfy Clean Air Act
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/q55posm0/0000-2022-plan-for-the-2015- 8-hour-ozone-standard.pdf. A ccessed February 2024.
17 requirements and ensure attainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8- hour ozone standard. To assure the SJVAB’s continued attainment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) respirable particulate matter (PM 10) standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation5 in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards6 to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), established in 2012.
The SJVAPCD has established project construction and operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants (Table 1).
7 For a project to be consistent with
SJVAPCD attainment plans, the pollutants emitted from project operation should not exceed the SJVAPCD daily thresholds, the project should not cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the attainment plans projection.
Table 1: SJVAPCD Project Construction and Operational
Emission Thresholds
CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Construction Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Annual Operational Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Source: SJVAPCD (2015)
*Emission units = Tons per Year (tpy)
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
ROG = reactive organic gas
SOX = sulfur oxides
As discussed in Impact Discussion III .b), emissions associated with the construction or operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. Operation of the emergency call center would involve transferring
5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007. 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. September 20. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf. 6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. November 15. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006- and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf. A ccessed February 2024.
7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. March 19. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714- GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Acce ssed February 2024. 18 existing operations (i.e., number of employees) from the police department. It is anticipated that future operation of the emergency call center would generate 30 to 35 new employment opportunities. Future employment opportunities are primarily expected to be filled by existing residents; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth or associated vehicle trips in a manner that could conflict with the SJVAPCD air quality plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of construction- or operational- related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.
To aid in evaluating potentially significant construction and operational impacts of a project, the SJVAPCD has prepared an advisory document, the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI),
8 which contains standard procedures
for addressing air quality. The 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. For government office buildings, the size threshold is 40,000 square feet, and the vehicle trip threshold is less than 1,000 trips per day. 9 The
project would result in the construction of a new 12,072- square-foot emergency call center and is expected to generate less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the SPAL screening thresholds for city office building square footage and trip generation rates and would not require further air quality analysis as construction-related and operational emissions would fall below the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
8 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted August 20, 1998; January 10, 2022, Revision. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI%20Jan%202002%20Rev.pdf .
Accessed March 2024.
9 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL). November 13. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI- SPAL.PDF. Accessed March 2024.
19 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants, such as the elderly, children, people with asthma or other respiratory illnesses, and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others due to the population that occupies the uses and the activities involved. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residences.
Surrounding land uses include the MSC to the north and west, industrial land uses to the south, and undeveloped land planned for IL uses to the east. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single- family residence located approximately 1,150 feet southwest of the project site. Due to distance from the nearest sensitive receptor location and limited air pollutant emissions expected during project construction, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction activities generally have the potential to emit odors from diesel equipment, paints, solvents, fugitive dust, and adhesives. Any construction odors would be intermittent and temporary, generally would not extend beyond the construction area, and would be limited to the construction phase of the proposed project. The operation of the proposed project would not result in the establishment of new land uses or other activities that could produce any offensive odors, including land uses such as agri cultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses.
The project is not located in an area with known potential for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA).
10 Therefore, construction activities would not have the potential to expose workers or surrounding land uses to harmful levels of NOA. There is potential for asbestos-containing material (ACM) to be present within the existing pavement and structures proposed for demolition; therefore, the project would have the potential to result in release of ACM. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been included to require ACM testing and identifies the proper protocol for the handling and removal of ACM if identified within materials proposed for demolition. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the proposed project would not result in odors or other emissions; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Asbestos-Containing Material. An asbestos -containing material survey consisting of a visual inspection, sampling, testing, and reporting shall be performed by a Certified Asbestos Consultant to determine if building materials contain asbestos-containing material and would require special handling and
10 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. 20 disposal during demolition. If asbestos -containing material is detected, proposed construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – National Emission Standard for Asbestos).
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a 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? Short-term construction activities would have the potential to result in direct (e.g., take) or indirect (e.g., light pollution, noise pollution, habitat loss, etc.) impacts to special - status plant and animal species if present within the project area during project construction.
Special-Status Plants
Based on a nine- quadrant query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
11 the following five special-
status plant species have been previously documented in the project vicinity (Appendix A):
• succulent owl’s -clover ( Castilleja campestris var. succulenta) is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and
11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Diversity Database.
Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed February 2024. 22 wetland areas. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 7).
• California jewelflower ( Caulanthus californicus) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub, pinion and juniper woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands. The project site is located in a 5- mile buffer area of a previously recorded occurrence of this species (CNDDB Occ. 38). • San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 21).
• hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 10 miles northwest of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 28). • Greene’s tuctoria ( Tuctoria greenei ) is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in vernal pool and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 11.8 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 22).
The project area consists entirely of an existing paved parking lot, ornamental vegetation and trees, and existing development and does not support suitable habitat for the special-status plant species listed above. In addition, the project site is subject to frequent human and vehicle disturbance, which further reduces the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the project area. Based on the lack of suitable habitat and frequent human and vehicle disturbance, special -status plant species are not expected to occur within the project area; therefore, the project would not result in adverse effects to special-status plant species, and impacts would be less than significant.
Special-Status Animals
Based on a nine-quadrant query of the CDFW CNDDB, the following 14 special-status animal species have been previously documented in the project vicinity (Appendix A):
• San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ) is a federally endangered and state threatened species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 7.35 miles southeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 89).
• Fresno kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys nitratoides exilis ) is a federally and state endangered species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub habitat. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 15).
• California tiger salamander – Central California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Ambystoma californiense pop. 1) is a federally and state threatened species that typically occurs in cismontane woodland, meadow and seep, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland 23 habitats. The project site is located in a 5- mile buffer area of a previously recorded occurrence of this species (CNDDB Occ. 478).
• western spadefoot ( Spea hammondii ) is a federally proposed threatened species that typically occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 13.4 miles northwest of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 790). • western pond turtle ( Emys marmorata ) is a federally proposed threatened species that typically occurs in aquatic and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 10.9 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 1,355).
• giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas ) is a federally and state threatened species that typically occurs in marsh, swamp, riparian scrub, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 19.6 miles southwest of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 8).
• valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ) is a federally threatened species that typically occurs in chenopod scrub habitat.
The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 9 miles northwest of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 134).
• Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) is a state candidate endangered species that typically occurs in grassland habitats. The project site is located in a 5-mile buffer area of a previously recorded occurrence of this species (CNDDB Occ. 53).
• vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a federally threatened species that typically occurs in valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 10.3 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 148).
• western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a federally threatened and state endangered species that typically occurs in riparian forest habitat. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 8.5 miles east of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 87).
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a state threatened species that typically occurs in grassland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. The project site is located in a 5- mile buffer area of a previously recorded occurrence of this species (CNDDB Occ. 2,583). • tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ) is a state threatened species that typically occurs in freshwater marsh, marsh, swamp, and wetland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 664).
• least Bell’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) is a federally and state endangered species that typically occurs in riparian forest, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 6 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 505).
24 • burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia) is a state candidate species that typically occurs in open habitats with sparse vegetation, including prairies, pastures, and desert grasslands as well as airports. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 5.1 miles northeast of the project area (CNDDB Occ. 1,962).
Special-status animal species known to occur in the region are not expected to occur within the project area based on the lack of suitable habitat, lack of connectivity to natural areas, and frequent site disturbance; however, there is low potential for migratory bird species to nest in the ornamental trees within the project area.
Proposed tree removal and other construction activities have the potential to result in direct and indirect disturbance to special -status and migratory nesting bird species if present within the project area during construction. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 has been included to require preconstruction nesting bird surveys and identifies the proper protocol to be implemented if birds are found nesting within the project area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts related to nesting migratory birds; therefore, impacts related to special-status animal species would be less than significant with mitigation. 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?
The project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. 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? According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper ,
12 there are no mapped wetland areas within
or adjacent to the project area. Based on the absence of wetlands within the project area, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a federally or state- protected wetland; therefore, no impacts would occur.
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? Open space areas, undeveloped land, and agricultural land are mainly located along the boundaries of the city, particularly near the northern boundary along the San Joaquin River corridor. The San Joaquin River corridor functions as a wildlife movement corridor for a number of terrestrial and aquatic mammals and birds and
12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper. Available at: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/.
Accessed March 2024.
25 facilitates movement of wildlife species from the city to the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and open agricultural land to the west. The project site is located in a developed area in the eastern portion of the city and is not located within a wildlife movement corridor.
The project site and surrounding area consists of disturbed areas and existing development, including the City’s MSC, roadways, fencing, and other developed features, which reduces terrestrial habitat connectivity within the area. There are no waterways within the project area that could provide migratory fish or breeding habitat.
Since the project area does not provide terrestrial or aquatic habitat connectivity, the project would not preclude use of the site as a terrestrial or aquatic wildlife corridor.
As previously identified, there is low potential for migratory birds to utilize ornamental trees within the project area for nesting habitat. The project would result in the removal of 15 ornamental trees from the project site; however, trees located outsi de of the project site would remain in place. Therefore, proposed tree removal would not interfere substantially with the movement of migratory species, and impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Section 13-305 (Tree Preservation) of the City’s Municipal Code requires the use of techniques, methods, and procedures to preserve, whenever feasible, all trees in the city, including, but not limited to, trees that are affecting surface improvements or underground facilities or are diseased or located where construction is being considered or will occur. The project would require the removal of 15 ornamental trees from the project site. In accordance with Section 13- 305(b), the Director of Public Works would be responsible for the preservation and removal of trees located at the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance; therefore, impacts 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?
The Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan ( O&M HCP)
13 was approved in 2007 and
covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. The O&M HCP covers PG&E activities that occur as a result of ongoing operations and maintenance that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. PG&E’s HCP is not implicated by the project. The project site is not located within the covered area of any other HCP or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Additionally, no new physical improvements would occur as a result of the proposed project, and the project would
13 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2006. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf.
Accessed March 2024.
26 not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E O&M HCP; therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to initiation of any site preparation/construction activities, if work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within 1 week prior to initial project activity beginning, including ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal/trimming. If nesting birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active, as detailed below:
A 50-foot exclusion zone shall be placed around non- listed, passerine species and a 250- foot exclusion zone will be implemented for raptor species. Each exclusion zone shall encircle the nest and have a radius of 50 feet (non-listed passerine species) or 250 feet (raptor species). All project activities, including foot and vehicle traffic and storage of supplies and equipment, are prohibited inside exclusion zones.
Exclusion zones shall be maintained until all exterior construction activities have been terminated for the current phase of work (e.g., if initial site improvements are completed, exclusion zones may be removed until initiation of site preparation for residence construction begins), or it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged or that proposed project activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young.
If special-status avian species are identified and nesting within the work area, no work will begin until an appropriate exclusion zone is determined in consultation with the City of Fresno and any relevant resource agencies.
The results of the survey shall be provided to the City of Fresno prior to initiation of site preparation/construction activities. The results shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of exclusion zones and include recommendations for additional monitoring requirements. A map of the project site and nest locations shall be included with the results. The qualified biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended exclusion zone depending on site conditions and species (if non-listed).
If 2 weeks lapse between different phases of project activities (e.g., vegetation trimming, the start of grading), during which no or minimal work activity occurs, the nesting bird survey shall be repeated, and a separate survey report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Fresno.
27 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A historical resource, as defined by CEQA, includes one or more of the following criteria: 1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the CRHR; 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by PRC Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)).
Under CE QA, historical resources include built environment resources and archaeological sites.
The project site consists entirely of an existing parking lot and associated features.
The project includes the demolition of existing pavement , on-site structures, and utilities, which do not qualify for listing as a historical resource.
Therefore, there are
no historic resources located within the project area. Since there are no historic resources located within the project area, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no impacts would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites 28 that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (PRC Section 21083.2).
Construction activities would result in approximately 1.25 acres of ground disturbance, including approximately 121 cubic yards of cut and 1,372 cubic yards of fill (approximately 1,251 cubic yards of net fill). The project site consists entirely of an existing parking lot, which reduces the potential for intact archaeological resources to be present within the proposed area of disturbance.
Based on a records search
conducted at the San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at California State University, Bakersfield and the NAHC SLF, there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the project area ; therefore, proposed
ground-disturbing activities are not anticipated to adversely affect any known or unknown cultural resource sites within the project area. Further, Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural resources are uncovered during proposed ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease within the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist is retained to evaluate the significance of the find and determine the need for further study. Based on the low potential to uncover archaeological resources within the project area and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, the project would not result in adverse impacts to known or unknown cultural resources, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known human remains or cemeteries located within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and the project area is considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of unidentified human resources. Mitigation Measure CR -2 has been identified to require the project to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains. Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Fresno County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The Fresno County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).
The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Based on implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2, the project would not result in disturbance to human remains; therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-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 cultural resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified cultural resources specialist 29 shall make recommendations to the City of Fresno 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Fresno’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique his torical resources as defined under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, measures shall be identi fied 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 historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided t o a City of Fresno- approved institution or person who is capable of providing long- term preservation to allow future scientific study.
CR-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the MLD’s preferences for treatment.
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?
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and typical of other similar construction activities in the city. Federal and state regulations in place require the use of fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and require wasteful activities, such as diesel idling, to be limited.
Further, construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would not be expected to engage in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices, such as diesel idling. Energy consumption during construction would not be wasteful, unnecessary, or inefficient; therefore, would be less than significant.
Operational energy consumption would include electricity use for building operations and fossil fuel use for vehicle trips to and from the site. Electricity would be provided by PG&E, which consists of 38% renewable energy sources and 57% greenhouse gas (GHG)-free energy sources.
14 By using electricity from PG&E, the project would
reduce the long-term use of non-renewable energy resources. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety, and welfare are already part of the community and, as a public service, the vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) is accounted for in the existing regional average. In addition, many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) and/or use vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to generate VMT in a manner that
14 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page. Accessed Mar ch 2024.
31 could result in substantial consumption of fossil fuels. Further, the project includes the installation of EV-ready and EV-capable parking spaces to promote the use of long- term alternative fuel use. The proposed building would be required to comply with applicable California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 11) and California Energy Code ( 24 CCR Part 6) requirements to encourage energy efficient design. The project includes the installation of an emergency diesel generator; however, use of the diesel generator would be infrequent and temporary and would not result in substantial consumption of fossil fuels. Therefore, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Energy use and generation contribute to GHG emissions; therefore, clean and renewable energy initiatives are consistent with State goals to reduce GHG emissions.
On April 20, 2022, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Board of Directors adopted an updated threshold of significance for climate impacts for long- term communitywide planning documents (e.g., general plans, long- range development plans, climate action plans).
15 To demonstrate a less -than-significant
climate impact, the plan must demonstrate that the community will reduce GHG emissions at least 40 % below 1990 levels by 2030 and support the State’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, or meet the requirements for a GHG reduction strategy in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
For land use development projects, the BAAQMD recommends using the approach endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v.
Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), which evaluates a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long- term climate goals. 16 As
the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less -than-significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required t o achieve those long- term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th 220– 223). Applying this approach, the BAAQMD has analyzed what will be required of new land use development projects to achieve
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Appendix C Guidance for GHG Reduction Strategies. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/appendix-c- ghg-reduction-strategies_final_edits-for-ascent-
pdf.pdf?rev=8e5bb7d8ad504dd6accd3c04e58bdf87&sc_lang=en. Accessed September 2024. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Guidelines Appendix B: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans.
Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/appendix-b-thresholds-for-evaluating-significance-of-climate-impacts_final- pdf.pdf?rev=10305f45037b41dba2cd1b45b288d54b#:~:text=This%20report%20presents%20the%20B ay%20Area%20Air%20Quality%20Management%20District's. Accessed September 2024. 32 California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As discussed in detail in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would be consistent with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects and would contribute its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
As discussed in Impact Discussion VI .a), the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen ( 24 CCR Part 11) and the California Energy Code ( 24 CCR Part 6), which include provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption. In addition, electricity would be provided by PG&E, which consists of 38% renewable energy sources and 57% GHG- free energy sources. By using electricity from PG&E, the project would reduce the long-term use of non- renewable energy resources, and operational energy consumption would be compliant with state and local goals for energy reduction .
Therefore, proposed impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
33 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.
Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., in the last 11,000 years).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are delineated areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces 34 are located in the project vicinity. The nearest active fault is the Nunez Fault, approximately 50 miles southwest of the city of Fresno. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risk as a result of fault rupture, and no impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The city of Fresno is located in an area with a historically low-to-moderate level of seismicity. However, strong ground shaking could occur within the project site during seismic events and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the nearby Great Valley Fault Zone or the Nunez Fault, or other associated faults, could affect the project site through strong seismic ground shaking. Strong seismic ground shaking could potentially cause structural damage to the proposed project. However, based on the distance from known faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. In addition, the project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) to reduce the risk associated with seismic groundshaking. Based on low potential for seismic groundshaking and required compliance with the CBC, the project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic ground shaking; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking. The predominant soils within the city of Fresno consist of varying combinations of loose/very soft to very dense/hard silts, clays, sands, and gravels. Groundwater has been encountered near the ground surface in close proximity to water ‐filled features such as canals, ditches, ponds, and lakes. Based on these characteristics, the potential for soil liquefaction within the city ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. In addition to liquefaction, the city could be susceptible to induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils or lateral spread during seismic shaking events. Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, seismic settlement and/or lateral spread are not anticipated to represent a substantial hazard within the city during seismic events.
Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low-to-moderate seismicity of the region, potential for seismic related ground failure is low in Fresno.
17 In addition, the project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC to reduce the risk associated with liquefaction. Based on the low potential for liquefaction and required compliance with CBC
17 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. Adopted December 18. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf. Accessed February 2024.
35 requirements, the project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of liquefaction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. The city of Fresno is located within an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the city; however, there is the potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, creeks, or drainage basins such as the San Joaquin River bluff and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the City. The project site is located in a relatively flat area and is not in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River bluff or other unlined basins or canals; therefore, the potential for landslides to occur within the project site is low. In addition, the proposed project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC to reduce the risk associated with landslides. Based on the low potential for landslide and required compliance with CBC requirements, the project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of landslide; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project would result in approximately 1.25 acres of ground disturbance, including approximately 121 cubic yards of cut and 1,372 cubic yards of fill (approximately 1,251 cubic yards of net fill). Ground- disturbing activities during project construction have the potential to result in minimal erosion and loss of topsoil. The project would disturb more than 1 acre of soils and would be required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) general construction permit requirements. In additio n, the project would be required to comply with Article 7 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control) of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosive runoff during construction. Following project construction, the project site would be covered with hardscapes, which would reduce the potential for lon g-term erosion to occur at the project site. Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City requirements, impacts related to substantial erosion 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? According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the project, 18 soils at the project site consist of fill material comprised of silty sand with minimal traces of clay underlain by medium dense to very dense silty sand. As previously stated, soils at the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Proposed roadway improvements would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements to avoid risk associated with
18 Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan). 2024. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 911 Call Center, 1325 East El Dorado Street, Fresno California. February 21. 36 unstable soils. Based on the low potential for ground failure and required compliance with CBC requirements, the project would not result in the risk associated with ground- failure events; therefore, impacts 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?
Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. The clayey soils, which consist of very fine particles, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. The project site is underlain by Hanford sandy loam (Hc), which consists of sandy loam and would have low potential for expansion. 19 Further, according to the
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,20 soils at the project site consist of fill material comprised of silty sand with minimal traces of clay underlain by medium dense to very dense silty sand. Due to the limited extent of clay components, soils at the project site would have low potential for expansion. In addition, the project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC to further reduce the risk associated with development on expansive soils. Based on the low potential for soil expansion and required compliance with applicable roadway design standards, the project would not result in the risk associated with expansive soils; therefore, impacts 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 would connect to the City’s existing sewer system and would not require the construction of new septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The project site is underlain by great valley fan deposits of the Holocene era (Qf ), which has a low paleontological sensitivity due its relatively young age. 21 Further, the
project site consists entirely of an existing parking lot, which reduces the potential for intact paleontological resources to be present within the project area. Based on the low paleontological sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit, the project would not directly or indirectly disturb a unique paleontological resource; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
19 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 2024. 20 Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan). 2024. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed 911 Call Center, 1325 East El Dorado Street, Fresno California. February 21. 21 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1978. Fresno sheet. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_114520.htm. Accessed March 2024. 37 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. Federal and state regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling. Construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would be expected to not engage in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices.
Therefore, construction activities are not anticipated to result in significant GHG emissions, and construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
Operational energy consumption would include electricity use for building operations and fossil fuel use for vehicle trips to and from the site. Electricity would be provided by PG&E, which consists of 38% renewable energy sources and 57% GHG -free energy sources.
22 By using electricity from PG&E, the project would reduce the long- term use of non- renewable energy resources , which would help reduce long- term GHG emissions associated with energy generation. The proposed building would be required to comply with applicable CALGreen (24 CCR Part 11) and California Energy Code ( 24 CCR Part 6) requirements to encourage energy efficient design, which would further reduce long-term GHG emissions associated with energy generation.
The project includes the installation of a 480-volt emergency diesel generator that would provide 750 kilowatt -electric (kWe) of standby energy . At full po wer, the
22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean- energy-solutions.page. Accessed Mar ch 2024.
38 emergency diesel generator would require 54.3 gallons per hour of diesel fuel ; however, use of the diesel generator would be infrequent and temporary and would not result in substantial ongoing consumption of fossil fuels.
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety, and welfare are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average. In addition, many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger ‐cars or light duty trucks. 23 Therefore, the
project is not anticipated to generate VMT in a manner that could result in substantial consumption of fossil fuels. Further, the project includes the installation of EV -ready and EV-capable parking spaces to promote the use of long-term alternative fuel use.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial GHG emissions from transportation sources.
Based on the analysis provided above, the project is not anticipated to generate substantial GHG emissions during project construction or operation, and impacts 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?
The project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD, which released the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan
24 in December 2009. The Climate Change Action
Plan identifies goals and policies to address reductions in GHGs and improvement to regional air quality. The plan also includes a methodology for determining project- specific Best Performance Standards (BPSs), which are described as mitigation measures intended to accomplish GHG reductions. BPSs may include building design elements that reduce energy consumption, project designs that promote pedestrian access, and land use planning decisions that reduce VMT.
As discussed in Impact
Discussion VIII.a) , the project would be required to comply with state and local requirements to reduce construction and operational GHG emissions, would utilize clean energy sources and building design, and would not generate a substantial increase in VMT and associated vehicle emissi ons; therefore, the project would not generate significant GHG emissions during project construction or operation and would be consistent with the goals of the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan.
23 City of Fresno. 2020. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. June 25. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-Traveled- Final-Adopted-
Version.pdf#:~:text=final%20rulemaking%20surrounding%20SB%20743%20and%20the%20implement ation. A ccessed February 2024.
24 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land- use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. Accessed October 2024. 39 Further, according to the process for evaluating GHG significance described in the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan, projects that comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less -than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to formally implement BPSs.
On April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted an updated threshold of significance for climate impacts for long- term communitywide planning documents (e.g., general plans, long- range development plans, climate action plans). 25 To
demonstrate a less -than-significant climate impact, the plan must demonstrate that the community will reduce GHG emissions at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and support the State’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, or meet the requirements for a GHG reduction strategy in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
For land use development projects, the BAAQMD recommends using the approach endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v.
Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), which evaluates a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals. 26 As the
Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less -than-significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long-term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th 220–223).
Applying this approach, the BAAQMD has analyzed what will be required of new land use development projects to achieve California’s long- term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The BAAQMD has found, based on this analysis, that a new land use development project being built today needs to incorporate the following design
25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Appendix C Guidance for GHG Reduction Strategies. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/appendix-c- ghg-reduction-strategies_final_edits-for-ascent-
pdf.pdf?rev=8e5bb7d8ad504dd6accd3c04e58bdf87&sc_lang=en. Accessed September 2024. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Guidelines Appendix B: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans.
Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/appendix-b-thresholds-for-evaluating-significance-of-climate-impacts_final- pdf.pdf?rev=10305f45037b41dba2cd1b45b288d54b#:~:text=This%20report%20presents%20the%20B ay%20Area%20Air%20Quality%20Management%20District's. Accessed September 2024. 40 elements (either A or B) to do its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045:
A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential
development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis
required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section
15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan
(currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT b.
Achieve compliance with off -street electric vehicle
requirements in the most recently adopted version of
CALGreen Tier 2.
B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) If a project is designed and built to incorporate these design elements, then it will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long- term climate goals—its “fair share” —and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. If the project does not incorporate these design elements, then it should be found to make a significant climate impact because it will hinder California’s efforts to address climate change.
41 The project’s consistency with the BAAQMD thresholds for land use is shown in Table
2. Table 2: Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects
BAAQMD Design Element Evaluation of Project Consistency Buildings
The project will not include natural gas
appliances or natural gas plumbing (in
both residential and nonresidential
development).
The proposed project does not require
any connections to natural gas;
therefore, the project would not include
natural gas appliances or natural gas
plumbing.
The project will not result in any wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage
as determined by the analysis required
under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
Please refer to Impact Discussion VI(a) .
The project would not result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources
Transportation
Achieve a reduction in project-generated
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the
regional average consistent with the
current version of the California Climate
Change Scoping Plan (currently 15
percent) or meet a locally adopted
Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the
recommendations provided in the
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research's Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent
below the existing VMT per capita
ii. Office projects: 15 percent below
the existing VMT per employee
iii. Retail projects: no net increase in
existing VMT
As discussed in Section XVII,
Transportation, development of
institutional/government and public
service uses that support community
health, safety, and welfare are already
part of the community and, as a public
service, the VMT is accounted for in the
existing regional average. In addition,
many of these facilities generate fewer
than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other
than passenger cars or light-duty trucks.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated
to generate VMT in a manner that would
exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 15%
below the existing VMT per employee.
Achieve compliance with off -street
electric vehicle requirements in the most
recently adopted version of CALGreen
Tier 2.
The project would install two EV spaces
and eight EV -capable space s to meet
CALGreen Tier 2 EV charging
requirements.
42 Table 2: Project Consistency with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects
BAAQMD Design Element Evaluation of Project Consistency Source: BAAQMD (2022)
As shown in Table 2, the project would be consistent with the BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects and would contribute its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As such, the project would be consistent with an approved
GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program intended to avoid or substantially reduce GHG emissions and would not be required to formally implement project-specific BPSs as identified in the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan.
The proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the San Joaquin Valley Climate Change Action Plan or BAAQMD Thresholds for Land Use Projects; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – 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
43 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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 includes the construction and operation of an emergency call center. The project would require limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. during construction, which has the potential to result in an accidental spill or release. No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the 44 project site. All materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), USEPA, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Further, all storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would be required to comply with applicable safety standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies N S-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS -4-f.
27 Therefore, impacts associated
with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials 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 discussed in Impact Discussion IX.a), the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport of hazardous materials through required compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the DTSC, USEPA, and OSHA.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project 28 to
evaluate the presence, or likelihood of presence, of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), which are defined as any hazardous substances or petroleum products that have been discharged into the ground, groundwater, or surface water.
The Phase I ESA includes the results of a background review of present and past uses of the project site and a site inspection conducted on October 27, 2023. The Phase I ESA identified potential RECs at the project site associated with the project site’s former use as a gasoline fueling station and vehicle repair service. A Phase II Limited Site Assessment (LSA) was prepared for the project 29 to further assess the
presence of potential RECs associated with former uses of the project site. The Phase II LSA includes the results of a geophysical survey and soil vapor assessment. The Phase II LSA determined that no underground storage tanks (USTs) , UST -related features, or other potential subsurface automotive service features occur in the shallow subsurface. Due to the lack of significant findings during the subsurface survey, soil sample locations were not identified, and soil samples were not collected.
27 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 9: Noise and Safety Element, pgs. 9-33 and 9-34.
Adopted December 18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and- Safety-02-03-21.pdf. A ccessed February 2024.
28 Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan). 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Emergency Call Center, Project Number FN00020, Northwest Corner of El Dorado and G Streets, APN 465-062-04T (portion), Fresno, California 93706. November 9.
29 Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan). 2024. Report of Findings Phase II Limited Site Assessment, Emergency Call Center, Project Number FN00020, Northwest Corner of El Dorado and G Streets, APN 465-062-04T (portion), Fresno, California 93706. February 23. 45 Therefore, the Phase II LSA determined that no RECs occur at the project site and no further investigation is warranted.30
As discussed in Section III, Air Quality , the project site is not located in an area with the potential for NOA to occur. However, the project would require the demolition of existing pavement and associated on- site components that have the potential to contain ACM. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been identified to reduce the potential to disturb ACM during proposed demolition activities. In addition, proposed demolition activities would have the potential to disturb lead- based paint (LBP). Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been identified to reduce the potential to disturb LBP during proposed demolition activities.
Based on implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and HAZ -1 and required compliance with existing regulations, the project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The closest existing school is Kepler Neighborhood School, located approximately
0.55 mile northwest of the project site. The proposed project is not located within
0.25 mile of an existing school; therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? According to the DTSC EnviroStor database
31 and State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database ,32 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, state response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section
30 Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan). 2024. Report of Findings Phase II Limited Site Assessment, Emergency Call Center, Project Number FN00020, Northwest Corner of El Dorado and G Streets, APN 465-062-04T (portion), Fresno, California 93706. February 23. 31 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno. Accessed March 2024. 32 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed March 2024. 46 65962.5.33 As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated, and no impacts would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest medical center helipad to the project site is at the Community Regional Medical Center,
34 located approximately 1.13 miles southwest of the project site. The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 5.15 miles northeast of the project site; Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 0.87 mile southwest of the project site; and Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 7.43 miles northwest of the project site.
Each of these airports is considered under the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies. The Fresno County ALUCP includes airport safety zone maps that are based on the likelihood of aircraft accident s adjacent to airports. The project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone where aircraft accident risk level is considered to be low. 35 Although the
project site is within 2 miles of a public use airport, the proposed project is located in a low aircraft accident risk area. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an emergency plan for natural, human-made, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The City's full ‐time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up ‐to‐date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other federal, state, and local agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOCs.
33 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/. Accessed March 2024. 34 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/#. Accessed March 2024.
35 Fresno Council of Governments. 2021. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2018; Amended December 2021. Available at: https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/09/Fresno-ALUCP-12-04-17-final-with-Amended-Table.pdf. Accessed Mar ch 2024.
47 The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. Construction activities would be limited to an existing parcel and would not require the closure of any public roadways that could impede emergency response or evacuation efforts. In addition, the proposed project would not require the permanent alteration of any existing roadways that could interfere with any emergency evacuation routes or an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, impacts 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 project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations. Additionally, the project is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).
36 The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. The project would be constructed in accordance with the California Fire Code (CFC) to reduce risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Based on required compliance with the CFC, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, included in Section III, Air Quality.
HAZ-1 A lead-based paint survey consisting of a visual inspection, sampling, testing, and reporting shall be performed to determine if existing pavement and/or associated components proposed for demolition contain lead- based paint. If elevated concentrations of metals from lead- based paint are detected, construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the requirements of Sections 402 and 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
36 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 .
Accessed January 2024.
48 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:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:
X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
49 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The SWRCB and nine RWQCBs (collectively referred to as the California Water Boards) regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. There are no surface water features located within or adjacent to the project site; therefore, the project would not result in direct disturbance to any surface water features.
Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Ground disturbance and the use of construction equipment and vehicles during proposed construction activities have the potential to result in erosion and other pollutants that could run off to surrounding areas. The project would result in approximately 1.25 acres of ground disturbance, including approximately 121 cubic yards of cut and 1,372 cubic yards of fil l (approximately 1,251 cubic yards of net fill). Construction activities would require the demolition of existing pavement and associated on- site components. The project would disturb more than 1 acre of soils and would be required to comply with RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Article 7 (Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control) of the City ’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge during construction.
Operation of the project would not result in a new source of pollutants in the project area. Further, the project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP), which manages the City’s stormwater drainage systems and the City’s participation in the Phase 1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Phase 1 MS4).
Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City requirements, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise 50 substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project site is located in the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.
37 The Kings Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 976,000 acres (1,530 square miles) within Fresno, Kern, and Tulare Counties; therefore, a marginal increase in impervious surface area at the site would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that could impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Further, the project includes the construction of an emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC.
The project site is currently developed as a paved parking lot; therefore, construction of the project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site that could interfere with groundwater recharge. Further, the project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI); therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario, the project would not result in unplanned population growth that could deplete the City’s water supply. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The project would not result in direct alteration of any drainage or surface water features. The project would result in approximately 1.25 acres of ground disturbance, including approximately 121 cubic yards of cut and 1,372 cubic yards of fill (approximately 1,251 cubic yards of net fill), which has the potential to result in an increase in erosion that could run off from the project site to surrounding areas. The project would disturb more than 1 acre of soils and would be required to comply with RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Article 7 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce erosive runoff during construction. Following project construction, the project site would be covered with hardscapes, which would reduce the potential for long-term erosion to occur at the
37 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Kings Subbasin. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/5_022_08_KingsSubbasin.pdf. Accessed February 2024.
51 project site. Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City requirements, impacts related to substantial erosion would be less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
The project would not result in direct alteration of any drainage or surface water features. The project site is currently developed as a paved parking lot; therefore, construction of the project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area at the project site that could increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- or off-site. The project would be subject to Article 7 of the City ’s Municipal Code and the SDFCMP for long-term drainage requirements. Based on required compliance with City stormwater requirements, the project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The project would not result in direct alteration of any drainage or surface water features. The project site is currently developed as a paved parking lot; therefore, construction of the project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site that could increase the rate or amount of surface water or pollutant runoff. The project would be subject to RWQCB requirements and Article 7 of the City ’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge from entering the City’s storm drain system during construction and operation. Further, the project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in accordance with the City’s SDFCMP. Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City stormwater requirements, the project would not 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; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 regulations and Article 6 (Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance) of the City’s Municipal Code require that placement of flood provision structures within a floodplain not result in a cumulative change in the floodplain water surface that exceeds 1 foot. In addition, the regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 do not allow placement of structures within a regulatory floodway unless that placement would not result in any increase in the floodplain water surface elevation, mea ning that there is no displacement or redirection of the floodway. The City’s Flood Plain Ordinance requires that a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California certify that no displacement of floodwater would result from the flood proofing of a structure within a floodplain or a regulatory floodway.
52 According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06019C2110H (effective date 2/18/2009), the proposed project is located within Shaded Zone X (500- year floodplain), an area of 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard and 1% annual chance of flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile. The City’s Flood Plain Ordinance applies to Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), including Zones A, AO, A1-A30, AE, A99, and AH. The project site is not located within an SFHA and would not be subject to the City’s Flood P lain Ordinance. 38 The project site is
currently developed as a paved parking lot; therefore, construction of the project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site that could increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff. Further, the project would be subject to Article 7 of t he City ’s Municipal Code and the SDFCMP for long-term drainage requirements. Based on required compliance with City stormwater requirements, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is not located in tsunami or seiche zones, but it is located in a 500-year floodplain as mapped by FEMA. The project site is currently developed as a paved parking lot; therefore, construction of the project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site that could increase the rat e or amount of surface water runoff. Further, the proposed project would be subject to RWQCB requirements, Article 7 of the City’s Municipal Code, and the City’s SDFCMP for short - and long- term pollutant control and drainage requirements. Based on compliance with RWQCB and City requirements, the project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is located in the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Groundwater Subbasin Number 5-22.08). As evaluated in Impact Discussion X.b), the project would not decrease groundwater supply or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that would impede sustainable management of the groundwater basin. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB and would be subject to The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region,
39 which establishes water quality objectives for
38 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor.
Accessed January 2024.
39 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Revised February 2019 (with Approved 53 beneficial uses of water resources within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. The project would be required to comply with the Central Valley RWQCB general construction permit requirements. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Article 7 of t he City ’s Municipal Code, which requires the implementation of BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate pollutant discharge during construction. Further, the project would be required to implement water quality and watershed protection measures in ac cordance with the City’s SDFCMP to address long-term drainage conditions. Based on required compliance with RWQCB and City requirements, the project would not violate any RWQCB water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project would be c onsistent with sustainable management of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community? X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For example, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also
Amendments). Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201902.pdf . Accessed February 2024.
54 impair travel to areas outside of the community. The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC, and project activities would be limited to an existing parcel. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the removal or blockage of existing public roadways or other circulation paths and would not otherwise include any features that could physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project site is located within Fresno C ity Limits and the City's SOI. The project site is located in the City’s IL zone district and is designated IL in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation and zone district is intended to accommodate a diverse range of uses, including limited manufacturing and processing, research and development, fabrication, utility equipment and service yards, wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution activities in addition to small -scale retail and ancillary office uses. The project site would be consistent with the intent of the IL zone district.
As evaluated throughout this Initial Study, the project would be consistent with standards and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and 2021 GHG Plan. The project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ -1, included in Section III, Air Quality; Mitigation Measure BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources ; Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Mat erials, to mitigate potential impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which is consistent with the identified plans and policies intended to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects. Upon implementation of the identified mitigation, the project would not conflict with other local policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ -1, included in Section III, Air Quality ; Mitigation Measure BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources ; and Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 55 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 principal area for mineral resources in the city of Fresno is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -1, MRZ-2, and MRZ-3. The project site is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, is not an MRZ, and does not contain an MRZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the state, and no impacts would occur. 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? Refer to Impact Discussion XII(a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
56 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the p roject area to
excessive noise levels?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Existing ambient noise levels in the project area consist of vehicle noise along East El Dorado Street and other proximate roadways as well as noise from surrounding public service land uses. During project construction, noise from construction and demolition activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate project area. The project would require the use of typical construction equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, etc.) during proposed construction and demolition activities. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), noise from standard construction equipment generally ranges between 80 and 85 A - weighted decibels (dBA) in equivalent sound level (L
eq) at 50 feet from the source. 40
40 Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/. Accessed March 2024. 57 The nearest noise- sensitive land use is a single- family residence located approximately 1,150 feet southwest of the project site. Due to distance, short -term construction-related noise would be limited at the nearest noise- sensitive land use.
Further, according to Section 10-109 (Exceptions) of the City’s Municipal Code, construction-related noise 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, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed emergency call center would be consistent with the existing and surrounding land uses in the project area and would not result in the generation of new sources of noise that could permanently increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of th e project. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of City noise standards, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The proposed project has the potential to generate limited groundborne vibration during construction and demolition activities that require the use of heavy equipment.
Equipment used during project construction and demolition activities would be most similar to a large bulldozer, which generates a vibration level of 0.089 inches per second. Therefore, vibration from short -term construction activities would be below the 0.3 inch per second building damage criterion established by Caltrans. 41 In
addition, Section 15-2507 (Vibration) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts temporary construction activities from the City’s vibration standards. The project would be limited to the operation of an emergency call center and would not include new features that could generate substantial groundborne noise. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The nearest medical center helipad to the project site is at the Community Regional Medical Center,
42 located approximately 1.13 miles southwest of the project site. The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 5.15 miles northeast of the project site; Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 0.87 mile southwest of the project site; and Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 7.43 miles northwest of the project site.
41 Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/. Accessed March 2024. 42 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Available at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/#. Accessed March 2024.
58 Each of these airports is considered under the Fresno County ALUCP,43 which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies. The City’s General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted Fresno County ALUCP. The Fresno County ALUCP includes Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. The project site is within 2 miles of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport; however, the project site is located outside of the CNEL noise contours identified in the Fresno County ALUCP.
Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center to serve the existing and projected need for expanded police protection services within the city.
The proposed emergency call center would be operational 24 hours per day, every day of the calendar year, and would be operated and maintained by the Fresno Police
43 Fresno Council of Governments. 2021. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2018; Amended December 2021. Available at: https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/09/Fresno-ALUCP-12-04-17-final-with-Amended-Table.pdf. Accessed Mar ch 2024.
59 Department. Operation of the emergency call center would involve transferring existing operations (i.e., number of employees) from the police department. It is anticipated that future operation of the emergency call center would ultimately generate 30 to 35 new employment opportunities.
Future employment opportunities
are primarily expected to be filled by existing residents; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth. In addition, the project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario. Proposed construction activities have the potential to generate short -term employment opportunities; however, project construction is expected to use workers from the local employment force and would not require workers to relocate to the project area. The proposed project would be necessary to serve the existing and projected need for expanded police protection services within the city and would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project includes the demolition of existing pavement and existing on- site structures and utilities. The proposed project does not require the demolition or removal of existing housing and would not necessitate the displacement or removal of existing housing; therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
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
60 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si gnificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed project. There are 20 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station, Fire Station 3, located approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the project site. The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center to serve the existing and projected need for expanded police protection services within the city. Future employment opportunities are primarily expected to be filled by existing residents; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth. In addition, the project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario. The project would not generate population growth in a manner that could substantially increase demand on existing fire protection services within the city or require new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection ser vices; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Police protection?
The Fresno Police Department provides police protection to the project site. The Fresno Police Department Patrol Division is divided into five policing districts ; the project site is located within the Southwest District. The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center to serve the existing and projected need for expanded police protection services within the city. Operation of the emergency call center would involve transferring existing operations (i.e., number of employees) from the police department. It is anticipated that future operation of the emergency call center would ultimately generate 30 to 35 new employment opportunities. Future employment opportunities are primarily expected to be filled 61 by existing residents; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth. In addition, the project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario. The project would not generate population growth in a manner that could substantially increase demand on existing fire protection services within the city or require new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection services; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Schools?
The Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) serves more than 74,000 students and operates 64 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, eight high schools, four alternative schools, and three special education schools. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in a substantial increase of school- aged children; therefore, the project would not create an increased demand on local schools in a manner that would require new or physically altered facilities .
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Parks?
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not induce substantial or unplanned population growth that could result in deterioration of existing recreation facilities or require the expansion of new facilities; therefore, the project would not create an increased demand on public recreation facilities in a manner that would require new or physically altered facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities?
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not induce substantial or unplanned population growth. The project does not propose features that would significantly increase the demand on public facilities, such as libraries or post offices, or result in the need for new or physical ly altered governmental facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
62 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?
The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center to serve the existing and projected need for expanded police protection services within the city. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing , operation of the emergency call center would ultimately generate 30 to 35 future employment opportunities. Future employment opportunities are primarily expected to be filled by existing residents; therefore, the project would not result in substantial or unplanned population growth as a res ult of new employment opportunities. In addition, the project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario. The project would not generate population growth in a manner that could increase the use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project would not include or require the construction or expansion of existing public recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. 63 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Fresno General Plan Mobility and Transportation Element,44 identifies goals and implementing policies related to promoting a city of healthy communities, improving the quality of life in established neighborhoods, planning for all modes of travel on local and major streets in Fresno, providing a well -maintained transportation system, and protecti ng and improving public health and safety. Additionally, the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 45 reflects
transportation planning for Fresno County through 2046 and is intended to create a region of diverse, safe, resilient, and accessible transportation options that improve the quality of life for all residents by fostering sustainability, equity, a vibrant economy,
44 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 4: Mobility and Transportation Element. Adopted December 18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp4- Mobility-and-Transportation-9-30-2021.pdf. Accessed February 2024. 45 Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available at: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies- fall-outreach/. Accessed F ebruary 2024.
64 clean air, and healthy communities. The proposed project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. The project would be located in an existing urban area, would be consistent with the existing zoning of the project site, and would not facilitate substantial or unplanned population growth in a manner that could generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips, which is consistent with the objectives of the City’s General Plan . Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Mobility and Transportation Element and the FCOG 2022 RTP, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as 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 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 are no longer a relevant CEQA threshold for transportation impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states, “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.”
65 On June 25, 2020, the City adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (Fresno VMT Thresholds), pursuant to SB 743 to be effective July 1, 2020.46 The Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR),
47 was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less-than-significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.” The proposed project is eligible to screen out because the project includes the development of institutional/government and public service use that supports community health, safety, and welfare. According to the Fresno VMT Thresholds,
these facilities are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average. In addition, many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger ‐cars or light duty trucks. Theref ore, the VMT generated by the project and associated environmental impacts 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 include the construction of new roadways or other roadway components that could introduce hazardous roadway features. Further, the project would not alter pedestrian or vehicle access to the project site or introduce incompatible design features or equipment. The project site is located on a single parcel within the City’s MSC; therefore, pedestrian facilities are limited to internal pathways. There is an existing pedestrian crosswalk located at the entrance of the MSC, located at the intersection of E Street and East El Dorado Street. The project would retain existing pedestrian facilities within the project area. Further, the project does not include new features that could reduce pedestrian safety in the project area.
46 City of Fresno. 2020. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds. June 25. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEQA-Guidelines-for-Vehicle-Miles-Traveled- Final-Adopted-
Version.pdf#:~:text=final%20rulemaking%20surrounding%20SB%20743%20and%20the%20implement ation. A ccessed February 2024.
47 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed March 2024. 66 Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the risk of roadway or pedestrian hazards, and no impacts would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. Emergency and other vehicles would have access to the project site via existing internal roadways from East El Dorado Street, and emergency access would not be modified as a result of the proposed project.
Construction activities would be limited to an existing parcel and would not require the closure of any public roadways that could impede emergency access to the project site during temporary construction activities. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Nat
ive American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
67 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC s ection
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
s
ection 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
As previously discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources , there are no historic resources located within the project area; therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no impacts would occur.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
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 State 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 c ultural resources are either sites, 68 features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe that is either included in or eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support ed by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1–2)).
Additional information may also be available from the NAHC SLF per PRC Section 5097.96 and the CHRIS administered by the OHP. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to AB 52, Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult regarding the project based on a list of contacts provided by the NAHC. The City mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on March 11, 2024, which included the required 90-day time period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on April 10, 2024.
One letter
response was received from Robert Pennell, Tribal Cultural Resources Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria, in a letter dated March 28, 2024, stating that they “…Decline participation at this time but would appreciate being notified in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified.” A ll other tribes that were contacted declined consultation.
As previously discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources , based on searches of the SSJVIC records and NAHC SLF, there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the project area, and the project area is considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of unidentified prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. Therefore, proposed ground-disturbing activities are not anticipated to adversely affect any known or unknown cultural resource sites within the project area. Further, Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural resources are uncovered during proposed ground-disturbing activities, all work shall cease within the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist is retained to evaluate the significance of the find and determine the need for further study. Further, Mitigation Measure CR -2 has been identified to require the project to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains. Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Fresno County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. Based on the low archaeological sensitivity of the project area and implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2, the project would not result in disturbance to tribal cultural resources; therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources.
69 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
70 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 result in the construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure within the footprint of the proposed project. As evaluated throughout this Initial Study, the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, included in Section III, Air Quality; Mitigation Measure BIO -1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources ; Mitigatio n Measures CR-1 and CR-2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, have been included to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to less -than-significant levels.
Further, as discussed in Impact Discussions XIX.b) through XIX.d), the project would not increase demand on existing water, wastewater, or solid waste infrastructure in a manner that would require the construction of new or expansion of existing City utility infrastructure elsewhere. Upon implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in adverse environmental effects related to the relocation or installation of utility infrastructure; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 Department of Public Utilities would supply water to the project site. Based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan ,
48 the City has a water supply of
329,030 acre- feet per year (AFY) for the year 2025 and a project water supply of 357,330 AFY for the year 2045. The project would result in the construction of a new emergency call center that would result in a marginal increase in water use. The project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario.
Because the proposed project would be consistent with the C ity’s planned buildout scenario, the project would not result in unplanned growth that could deplete the City’s water supply. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.
48 City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Final_2021-07-
21.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
71 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 City owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. They are the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) and the North Fresno WRF. The Fresno/Clovis Regional WRF currently has a capacity of 91.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The North Fresno WRF has a capacity of 0.71 mgd. The project would result in the construction of a new emergency call center that would result in a marginal increase in wastewater generation. The project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth that could result in a substantial increase in wastewater generation. Therefore, the project would not generate wastewater in excess of existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Garbage disposed of in the city is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off ‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐ recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.
49 Other landfills within Fresno
County include the Clovis Landfill (City of Clovis Landfill 10-AA-0004) with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047. 50 Construction of the project may result in a temporary increase in solid waste, which would be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local laws and regulations, such as CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408, which require diversion of at least 75% of construction waste. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s Construction & Demolition Approved Disposal Facilities guide 51 for proper
disposal methods. Based on required compliance with CALGreen and City
49 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352. Accessed March 2024. 50 CalRecycle. 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: City of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347. Accessed March 2024. 51 City of Fresno. 2020. Construction & Demolition Approved Disposal Facilities. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DPUSW191004-Construction-Demolition- Approved-Disposal-Facilities-PDF.pdf. Accessed March 2024. 72 regulations, construction of the project would not generate solid waste in excess of local infrastructure capacity.
The project would result in the construction of a new emergency call center that would result in a marginal increase in solid waste. The project site is located entirely within Fresno City Limits and the City’s SOI; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s planned buildout scenario and would not result in unplanned growth that could result in a substantial increase in solid waste generation. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be disposed of at either the Fresno Sanitary Landfill or the American Avenue Landfill, which have adequate capacity to dispose of the marginal amount of solid waste generated by construction activities. Operation of the project would result in a marginal increase in solid waste and would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project would result in a marginal increase in solid waste and would not result in a substantial increase in solid waste that could interfere with solid waste reduction statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to, policies identified in the Fresno General Plan Public Utilities and Services Element.
52 The project would be required to
comply with CALGreen and City requirements to ensure proper diversion and disposal of short- and long-term solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ -1, included in Section III, Air Quality ; Mitigation Measure BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources ; and Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
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
52 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 6: Public Utilities and Services Element. Adopted December 18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/General-Plan-6-Public- Utilities-and-Services-7-19.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
73 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
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is located in an urban area and not within a VHFHSZ. 53 The project includes the construction of a new emergency call center within the eastern portion of the City’s MSC. Construction activities would be limited to an existing parcel and would not require the closure of any public roadways that could impede emergency response or evacuation efforts. The proposed project would not require the alteration of any existing roadways that could interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the city or an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, the proposed project
53 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 .
Accessed March 2024.
74 would be consistent with the Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element 54 and the Fresno County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 55 and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The project site is located in an urban area and not within a VHFHSZ. The project site is located in a highly developed area and does not consist of physical characteristics that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The project would be required to comply with the CFC to reduce risk associated with wildfire ignition at the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project would require the expansion of utility infrastructure to serve the proposed emergency call center. The project would be required to comply with the CFC to reduce risk associated with wildfire ignition at the project site.
Therefore, the project
would not exacerbate wildfire risk at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project site is not located in an area that would be susceptible to landslide. The project site is located in a 500- year flood zone. The project would be required to comply with applicable CFC and CBC requirements to avoid risk associated with post- fire hazards.
Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
54 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Chapter 9: Noise and Safety Element. Adopted December
18. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/9-Noise-and-Safety-02-03-21.pdf.
Accessed March 2024.
55 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. May. Available at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/sharedassets/county/v/1/public-health/fresno-county-hmp- final.pdf. Accessed Mar ch 2024.
75 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
76 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 p lant 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? As discussed in the preceding sections, the project has the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on Biological Resources .
During construction, tree removal and construction equipment use may affect biological resources, including special-status and migratory birds. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources, requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to the start of the construction period and identifies the proper protocol to be implemented if nesting birds are present within the project area at the time of project construction, which would reduce potential impacts a less -than- significant level.
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.)
When project impacts are considered along or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts may be significant. Construction and operation of the project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources , Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials .
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project-related impacts to a less -than-significant level. Based on implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, included in Section III, Air Quality; Mitigation Measure BIO-1, included in Section IV, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, included in Section V, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the cumulative effects of the proposed project would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project would result in air emissions and may disturb hazardous substances during construction of the project. Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these project -specific impacts to a less -than-significant level; therefore, the project would not result in substantial, adverse environmental effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly.
APPENDIX A
CDFW CNDDB Query Results