Exhibit M - Environmental Assessment No. T-6441-P23-01117-P23-03735 [3-6-2025]

Exhibit M
E202510000049

CITY OF FRESNO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Filed with the

FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721
FlLEp
MAR 0 6 2025 TIME

8.52am
_ FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
By——_____ ______
DEPUTYCyan Edmisten
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR T-6441/P23-
01117/P23-03735
APPLICANT:

Shin Tu
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 0 Street
Fresno, CA 93721
PROJECT LOCATION:

Located on the south side of East Belmont Avenue, between North Armstrong and North Temperance Avenues in the City and County of Fresno, California (See Exhibit A - Vicinity Map)
APN: 313-270-35
Site Latitude: 36044’53.86" N
Site Longitude: 119°40’08.03” W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 14S, Range 21E,
Section 3
The full Initial Study is on file in the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 3rd Floor, Room 3043, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

E202510000049
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Shin Tu of Precision Civil Engineering, on behalf of Yanhua Wu, has filed Plan Amendment Application No. P23-01117, Rezone Application No. P23-01117, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6441, and Planned Development Permit Application No. P23-03735 pertaining to approximately 3.90 acres of property located on the south side of East Belmont Avenue, between North Armstrong and North Temperance Avenues.

Plan Amendment Application No. P23-01117 proposing to amend the Fresno General Plan and Roosevelt Community Plan to change the planned land use designation for the subject property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.

Rezone Application No. P23-01117 proposing to rezone the subject property from the RS-3/UGM (Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Urban Growth Management) zone district to the RS-5/UGM (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density/Urban Growth Management) zone district.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6441 proposing to subdivide approximately 3.90 acres of property into a 30-lot single-family residential development.

Planned Development Permit Application No. P23-03735 proposing to modify the RS-5 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density) zone district development standards to allow for a reduction in setbacks and lot size, and an increase in lot coverage.

The City of Fresno has prepared an Initial Study of the above-described project and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 21093 and 21094 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15070 to 15075, 15150, and 15152, this project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15151 and 15179(b), the Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred and that no new information has become available.

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

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

E202510000040
With mitigation imposed under the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant, direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant. The Planning and Development Department, as lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred and that no new information has become available.

Based upon the evaluation guided by the Appendix G/Initial Study Checklist, it was determined that there are project specific foreseeable impacts which require project level mitigation measures.

The Initial Study has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects, which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in § 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The finding is, therefore, made that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Public notice has been provided regarding staff’s finding in the manner prescribed by § 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines and by § 21092 of the PRC Code (CEQA provisions).

Additional information on the proposed project, including the Project Specific Mitigation Measure Checklist, proposed environmental finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study may be obtained from the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor, Room 3043, Fresno, California 93721 3604. Please contact Juan Lara at (559) 621- 8039 or via email at [email protected] for more information.

ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments must be in writing and must state (1) the commentor’s name and address; (2) the commentor’s interest in, or relationship to, the project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at any time between the publication date of this notice and close of business on March 27, 2025. Please direct comments to Juan Lara, Planner III, City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, California, 93721-3604; or by email to [email protected].

INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY
Juan Lara, Planner III
DATE: 03/06/2025
SUBMITTED BY:

Qa — -
Juan Lara, Planner III

CITY OF FRESNO

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
3 - t Be poet Au
3 (
O 7.

I
3®
t
2 (i
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
E Belmont Ave
EBelmontAe---------------------------- -- ---- -fementnse E Belmont Ave Z.
■ EWadisonAve • ■ EVadisor.Ave
Z
2 G ■ '• E Grant Ave E Grant Ave
2 Y.N5C
2 ewastn@""
■ 5 E Washington Ave
P
z
Subject Property
520251 0000040
a*
z

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

Environmental Assessment Application No. T-6441/P23-01117/P23-03735

1. Project title:

Environmental Assessment Application No. T-6441/P23-01117/P23-03735

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

3. Contact person and phone number:

Juan Lara, Planner III
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8039

4. Project location:
6709 E. Belmont Avenue and is located on the south side of East Belmont Avenue, between North Armstrong and North Temperance Avenues, in the City and County of Fresno, CA (see location map in Appendix A)
Site Latitude: 36044’53.86" N
Site Longitude: 119040’08.03" W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 14S, Range 21E, Section 3 Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 313-270-35
1 5.

Project sponsor's name and address:

Yanhua Wu
2838 E Revere Rd
Fresno, CA 93720

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

General Plan:

Current: Low Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Community Plan: Roosevelt Community Plan

7. Zoning:

Current: RS-3/UGM (Residential Single Family, Low Density/Urban Growth Management)
Proposed: RS-5/UGM (Residential Single-Family, Medium Density/Urban Growth Management)

8. Description of project:

Plan Amendment-Rezone Application No. P23-01117, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6441, and Planned Development Permit Application No. P23-03735 were filed by Precision Civil Engineering on behalf of Yahana Wu, (herein, “Project Applicant”). The Project is located on the south side of East Belmont Avenue, between North Armstrong Avenue and North Temperance Avenue (APN 313-270-35).

Plan Amendment Application/Rezone No. P23-01117 requests authorization to amend the Fresno General Plan planned land use designation for the Project site from Low Density Residential (3.5-6 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (5-12 dwelling units per acre) to allow for the site to be developed at a density of approximately 7.69 single-family residential dwelling units per acre. The request also includes a change to the City of Fresno official zone map for the Project site from the RS-3/UGM (Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Urban Growth Management) 2 zone district to the RS-5/UGM (Single-Family Residential, Medium Density/Urban Growth Management) zone district.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6441 proposes the subdivision of the approximately

3.9-acre site into 30 single-family residential lots with public streets, two (2) outlots, Outlet A and Outlot B, totaling 1,780 square feet (sf) for landscaping and pedestrian purposes to match the dedication of the adjacent Tract No. 6299 to the west. Two (2) local roads are proposed, including a north-south local street that connects to and intersects East Belmont Avenue and east-west East Grant Avenue, which extends into Tract No. 6299 (see Appendix A for the site plan) to the west. Access to the proposed development will be from East Belmont Avenue and East Grant Avenue. All required improvements are proposed and will be installed by the developer as part of the Project.

The Planned Development Permit Application No. P23-03735 is required and requests to modify development standards as follows:

Code Section
or Plan Policy #
Description of standard Standard
requirement
Requested
Modification
15-903-1 Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 4,000 2,500
15-903-2 Front Setback (ft.) 13’ 5’
15-903-2 Street Side Setback (ft.) 10’ 5’
15-903-2 Rear Setback (ft.) 10’ 5’
15-903-1 Garage from primary faade
(ft.)
4’ 0’
15-903-1 Maximum lot coverage (ft.) 60% 80%
Construction
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 30-lot single-family development with the associated public road and utility improvements on an existing parcel. The 3 site currently consists of a primary residential dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit and a vacant shop with two attached garages and at least four parking spaces, which will be demolished as part of the proposed Project. Construction will take 12 months with an anticipated total buildout of the homes in fall of 2025.

It is anticipated that the following pieces of equipment would be used during construction activities:
• Roller;
• Large bulldozer;
• Loaded trucks;
• Excavator;
• Generator;
• Service truck; and
• Air compressor.
4 Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Exclusive
Agricultural
AE-20
Exclusive Agricultural (Fresno
County)
Fallowed Field
East Residential - Low
Density
RS-3/UGM
Residential Single Family, Low
Density/Urban Growth
Management (City of Fresno)
Community Church
South Residential -
Medium Density
RS-5/UGM
Residential Single Family,
Medium Density/Urban Growth
Management (City of Fresno)
Single-Family
Residential, Under
Construction
West Residential
Medium Density
RS-5/UGM
Residential Single Family,
Medium Density/Urban Growth
Management (City of Fresno)
Single-Family
Residential, Under
Construction
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Planning and Development Department, Building and Safety Services Division, Department of Public Works, Department of Public Utilities, Fire Department, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Fresno Irrigation District, PG&E, Clovis Unified School District, County of Fresno Department of Community Health, County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code 5 (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed project to each of these tribes on 6 October 20, 2023, which included the required 90-day time period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on January 17, 2024. All tribes which were contacted declined consultation.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality □ Biological Resources
□ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population/Housing
□ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire
□ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
7 — I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
—
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
— I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
— I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 3/6/2025
Juan Lara, Planner III Date
8 City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: For purposes of this Initial 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. 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.

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. 9 If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the PEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 10 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 out
croppings, 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? 12 No impact. A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides a distant view of highly valued natural or man-made landscape features for the benefit of the general public. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas can be obtained as well as locations where valued urban landscape features can be viewed in the distance.

The City of Fresno General Plan identifies six locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points from which views should be maintained. The scenic views from the San Joaquin River bluffs are not expected to be substantially affected since the land uses included in the approved General Plan are similar to current land uses. As such, future development associated with the continued implementation of the approved General Plan would result in a less than significant impact on existing designated vista points.

According to the City of Fresno General Plan, scenic views are also attributed to public views of buildings in Downtown Fresno that provide a skyline within the Planning Area.

Due to relatively flat topography, intervening land uses, and landscaping, views of the skyline are primarily limited to areas within the Downtown Fresno area. Limited views of existing high-rise buildings in Downtown Fresno are visible from portions of elevated freeways, including State Route (SR) 41, SR 99, and SR 180. The continued implementation of the approved General Plan would allow future development in the Downtown area, which could include additional high rises. While views of scenic resources in the Downtown Fresno area may be partially obstructed following future development as allowed by the approved General Plan, existing development in these areas currently inhibits views of scenic vistas.

The proposed Project site is located in an area designated for residential zoning uses by the City. The site is outside of the San Joaquin River bluffs and Downtown Fresno area. The adjacent parcels to the west and south will consist of single-family residences and areas located further south and west, past SR 180, have also been developed into subdivision neighborhoods. The subject site is currently developed, consisting of one main residential dwelling, an additional dwelling unit, and a vacant shop with two attached garages. All existing structures will be demolished prior to construction. The existing topography of the site is nearly flat, with an elevation of approximately 327 feet above mean sea level (amsl). There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic buildings located on the subject property that have 13 been identified as important scenic resources. A handful of smaller trees and shrubs will be removed prior to construction.

There will be no impacts to scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. The Project site is in an agricultural and residential area in the City of Fresno and there are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site. There are no scenic highways near the proposed site. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway is Hwy 168, south of Shaw Avenue, approximately 5.2 miles to the northwest and Hwy 180 east of Frankwood Avenue, approximately 12.4 miles to the east of the site. 1 Miles of intervening land uses separate the Project site from either stretch of eligible State Scenic Highway. As such, there is no impact. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located along the eastern Fresno City limit in an area historically utilized for agricultural development. Historical imagery on Google Earth shows that a portion of the site was utilized for agricultural row crops until 2021 when production stopped and the land became vacant. A single family residence is at the southern portion of the site which will be demolished as part of the Project. The site is surrounded by residential development to the west and south and has been designated by the General Plan for urban development. The proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of public views of the site from vacant land with a residence to fully developed with a 30-lot single-family residential development, including the associated improvements such as an internal roadway and landscaping. The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, 1 California State Scenic Highway Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcqis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed February 2024.
14 interior street design, lighting, parking and signage. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.

The Project will require demolition of all existing structures, as well as removal of existing trees and shrubs. Curb and gutters, electrical panels and pedestrian sidewalks are incorporated into the project design, along with site landscaping.

As part of the proposed Project, the site will be rezoned from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, to be consistent with the proposed Project density and with the residential development immediately to the west. Once rezoned, the proposed Project will be in compliance with the requirements of the Medium Density Residential Zone.

The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large city urban areas and are generally expected from residents of the City. These improvements would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area and would not diminish the visual quality of the area, as they would be consistent with the existing visual setting and consistent with regulations governing scenic quality The Project itself is not visually imposing against the scale of the existing landscape and nature of the surrounding area.

Therefore, the Project would have /ess than significant impacts on the visual character of the area.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project would result in new lighting sources on the site consistent with adjacent residential development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting, and security lighting. All street and landscape lighting will be consistent with the lighting set forth in Section 15-2508 of the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC), which states that “lights shall be placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties.” It also states that “windows shall not cause 15 glare that may disrupt adjoining properties, traffic on adjacent streets, etc.” Implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 will further reduce potential impacts resulting from street lighting.

The proposed Project may produce temporary light and glare from construction activities, which could stem from construction vehicle and equipment lighting.

However, most construction work is anticipated to take place during daylight hours, and lighting will be directed away from surrounding homes to minimize disruption. The construction-related light will cease once Project construction has finished.

Adherence to the FMC and mitigation measure AES-1 will ensure potential impacts resulting from new sources of light and glare will remain /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate the Visual resource related mitigation measure as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated March 6, 2025.

AES-1: Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residents.
16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
to agricultural resources are signifi
to the California Agricultural Lan
prepared by the California Dept,
assessing impacts on agriculture ar
resources, including timberland, a
may refer to information compiled
Protection regarding the state’s inv
Assessment Project and the Fore
measurement methodology provid
Resources Board. Would the proje

RY RESOU RI
cant environm
d Evaluation
of Conserva
id farmland. Ir
re significant
by the Califc
entory of fores
st Legacy As
ed in Forest F
ct:

CES - In determining whether impacts
lental effects, lead agencies may refer
and Site Assessment Model (1997)
tion as an optional model to use in
i determining whether impacts to forest
environmental effects, lead agencies
rnia Department of Forestry and Fire
st land, including the Forest and Range
ssessment project; and forest carbon
Protocols adopted by the California Air
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
17 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?
18 Less Than Significant Impact. The site is within the City limits in an area substantially built up with residential uses. This project is contiguous to an existing urbanized area and would a be natural progression that allows orderly and consistent development of residences to meet the growing demand for housing in the City. The site is designated for residential development by the City of Fresno General Plan.

The California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder Program considers the Project site to be Prime Farmland 2. Although potential impacts resulting from farmland conversion were analyzed when the General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning for the parcel changed from agriculture to residential, AE20 to RS-3, along with the Citywide rezone in 2016, in an abundance of caution, the potential impacts are analyzed again here utilizing the California Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA model was developed by the California Department of Conservation and is a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features.3 The LESA Model was developed to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process (Public Resources Code Section 21095), including in CEQA reviews.4
The LESA model takes into account site soil characteristics, site size, water availability, and amount and type of surrounding agricultural land that are grouped into two Land Evaluation (LE) factors and four Site Assessment (SA) factors. The proposed Project site had a final LESA score of 62.5, with the LE subscore as 44.5 and the SA subscore as 18 (see Appendix B for LESA worksheets). Per LESA scoring thresholds, these scores are considered less than significant. 5 Therefore, the results of the LESA model are less than significant and as such, impacts resulting from the 2 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed October 2023.
3 California Department of Conservation. Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) Model. https://www.conservation.ca.qov/dlrp/Paqes/qh lesa.aspx#:~:text=The%20Land%20Evaluation%20and%20Site%20Assessme nt%20%28LESA%29%20Model,aqricultural%20land%20resources%20based%20upon%20specific%20measurable%20feature s. Accessed October 2023.
4 Ibid.
5 California Department of Conservation. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. Instruction Manual. 1997.Page 2. https://www.conservation.ca.qov/dlrp/Paqes/qh lesa.aspx. Accessed October 2023. 19 conversion of agricultural land are /ess than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The site is zoned as RS-3 (Residential Single Family, Low Density) by the City of Fresno. The Applicant proposes re-zoning the Project site as RS-5 (Residential Single Family, Medium Density), as per the City of Fresno General Plan zoning designations. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation is required. There is 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))?
No Impact. The site is located on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley and does not contain any forest land or timberland. As mentioned in Impact b), above, the site is zoned as RS-3 (Residential Single Family, Low Density) by the City of Fresno. The Applicant proposes re-zoning the Project site as RS-5 (Residential Single Family, Medium Density), as per the City of Fresno General Plan zoning designations. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no mitigation is necessary. There is no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As described in Impact c) above, there is no forest land on the Project site. There is no impact.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impacts a) and c) above, the impact 20 to agricultural land is less than significant and there is no forest land on-site. The proposed Project will not involve new other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland. Impacts are /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan (e.g., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X
b) 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
22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? Less Than Significant Impact.

CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) into attainment, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 75 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 (PM10) standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007.

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 pg/m3, established in 2012. The SJVAPCD has established project construction and operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 1 below. For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD attainment plans, the pollutants emitted from project operation should not exceed the 23 SJVAPCD daily thresholds, cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the attainment plans projection.

As discussed below, 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.

Construction Emissions
Construction is expected to progress over two years, to be completed in 2025. As shown in Table 1, the emissions in each construction year are below the significance thresholds (modeling assumptions are provided in Appendix C). Consequently, the construction emissions for the Project basis are less than significant.

Table 1: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Year Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2023 0.0507 0.4795 0.4481 0.1026 0.0604
2024 1.3837 1.5339 1.8838 0.0827 0.0690

SJVAPCD
Significance threshold
(tons/year
10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—
significant impact?
No No No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII - Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Appendix C Modeling Results.
24 Operational Emissions
When making important determinations, the SJVAPCD considers building and operating emissions separately; in any case, the annual operating emissions together with the annual building emissions will not exceed the relevant SJVAPCD thresholds.

Operational emissions occur during the project's lifespan and come from two major sources: Region sources and motor vehicles or mobile sources.

Please note that these findings include the benefits of compliance with required regulations not yet implemented in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and the design and location of projects using the mitigation portion of CalEEMod. Such steps and regulations are considered part of the project baseline; however, the results are presented in the mitigated model performance of CalEEMod and are not considered mitigation appropriate for compliance with CEQA.

Reductions from land use and transportation measures relating to the location, site design and proximity of the project to alternative modes of transport are measured by CalEEMod and are based on the methodology provided in the 2010 report of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Gas Mitigation Measures. As shown in Table 2, the emissions are below the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) significance thresholds, and therefore, would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 2: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Source Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.6341 0.0138 0.2273 0.00021 0.00021
Energy 0.00038 0.0329 0.0140 0.00026 0.00026
Mobile 0.1342 0.2398 1.2651 0.3070 0.0840
Total 0.7722 0.2864 1.5064 0.3118 0.0888
25 Source Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Significance
threshold
10 10 100 15 15
Exceed
threshold—
significant
impact?
No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.

Source: Appendix C
Localized Pollutant Analysis
Emissions that occur at or near the Project have the ability to create a localized effect that is often called an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are deemed important if they will surpass any health-based air quality level when combined with background emissions.

The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) created by SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to identify projects needing thorough review for localized impacts. Projects with rises in on-site emissions from building or operating activities above the screening standard of 100 pounds per day of any polluting parameters following compliance with District Rule 9510 and the implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures will require an environmental quality review.

An estimate of the average daily emissions during construction and operation was performed to assess if emissions for any pollutant of concern would exceed 100 pounds per day. The average daily emissions for construction will occur during 2024 and 2025. During the project buildout, which is expected to be completed in 2025, emissions from residential units already constructed and inhabited will be generated.

Operational emissions include pollution from on-site sources such as natural gas 26 production and landscape maintenance, and from off-site vehicles that enter the project. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions
Source Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction
2024

0.4795 0.4481 0.1026 0.0604
Construction
2025

1.5339 1.8838 0.0827 0.0690
Operations 0.2864 1.5064 0.3118 0.0888
Screening
threshold
100 100 100 100
Exceed
screening
threshold?
No No No No
Notes:

The highest emissions occur during the winter modeling run for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The highest emissions occur during the summer modeling run for CO. CO operational emissions occur off-site and are addressed in the CO hot spot analysis.

NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM 10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter As shown in Table 3, the proposed Project will not surpass SJVAPCD screening requirements that require additional analysis of the ambient air quality. As such, the proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts are /ess than significant.
27 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5, which means that certain pollutants' exposure levels are often higher than the normal air quality requirements. The air quality standards have been set to protect public health, particularly the health of vulnerable people. Therefore, if the concentration of those contaminants exceeds the norm, some susceptible individuals in the population are likely to experience health effects, as described in Attachment A.

The health effects are therefore a factor in the dose-response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air, the length of time exposed and the individual's reaction are factors that affect the extent and nature of the health effects. As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the regional construction and operational emission analysis shows that the Project does not surpass the substantial thresholds of the District and that the Project is compliant with the Air Quality Attainment Plan applicable. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project is non-attainment. Impacts are /ess than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include the following uses:
residences, schools, day-care centers, extended-care facilities, and hospitals. There are sensitive receptors (residential uses) near the site to the west, south, east and northeast. Although the proposed Project itself is sensitive receptor and is being proposed near busy roadways, which has the potential to expose the proposed sensitive receptors to a higher level of pollution concentrations, for the purposes of CEQA, we only consider the impact of the project on the environment and not the impact of the environment on the project.

Construction: NOx, PM 10, PM2.5
As stated in Impact a) above, emissions during construction will not reach the thresholds of significance and would not be anticipated to result in concentrations that reach ambient standards or significantly add to a current excess of an ambient air quality level.
28 Operation: PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2
As stated in Impact a) above, localized PM10, PM2.5, CO and NO2 concentrations will not surpass the ambient air quality requirements. A 30-lot single-family residential subdivision is an insignificant source of these pollutants. The Project should therefore not expose susceptible receptors to significant air pollutant concentrations during operation. Impacts to sensitive receptors will be /ess than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Land uses which are usually known as sources of unacceptable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting plants, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants and rendering plants. The proposed Project includes the development of a single-family residential development and as such, will not be a source of unacceptable odors during operations.

The numerous diesel-powered vehicles and machinery that are in use on site will produce localized odors during construction. These odors would be temporary and would therefore not be identifiable outside the site limits of the Project for extended periods of time. The capacity for impacts of diesel odors is therefore less than significant. Impacts resulting from creating objectionable odors are /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
29 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
30 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
31 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes one parcel which is partially developed with a single-family residence. The remaining portion of the site is vacant, undeveloped, and routinely disked for weed control. The site is bordered by Belmont Avenue to the north, which is considered a Super Arterial by the City of Fresno General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map. Given the context (urban area with high traffic disturbance and associated traffic noise), and conditions of the site (partially vacant, partially developed and routine site disturbance), no natural habitat is present that would serve to attract candidate, sensitive or special status species.

As no natural habitat is present based on the disturbed nature of the site and urban context, a biological site survey was not deemed necessary. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species.
32 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the subject site. Additionally, there are no natural waterways or sensitive natural communities on the subject site or in the immediate vicinity. As such, there is no impact. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. There are no state or federally protected wetlands on the subject site. 6 As such, there is 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. As previously mentioned, the site contains a single-family residence and highly disturbed vacant land, periodically disked for weed control, and is substantially surrounded by urban development. This precludes the ability of wildlife species to freely move throughout the area creating a migratory corridor. Thus, no wildlife corridors exist on the site which would be impeded during Project construction and operation. Project development could, however, impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).

Migratory birds could potentially nest on and near the trees surrounding the existing buildings on the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season 6 US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper. https://fwsprimarv.wim.usqs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed March 2024. 33 could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered a “take” under the MBTA and CFGC. Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant impact Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (below) shall be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential effect to a /ess than significant level with mitigation incorporated.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element contains several objectives and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources. Most of the policies pertain to general long-term protection and preservation of biological resources including providing buffers for natural areas, implementing habitat restoration where applicable, protection/enhancement of the San Joaquin River area, and other similar policies. Since the Project is located in a highly disturbed area with minimal biological resources and does not include significant impacts to protected plant or animal species, the Project does not conflict with any adopted policies pertaining to biological resources. The Project is also required to implement Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 13, Article 3 - Street Trees and Parkways pertaining to tree removal and replacement. Therefore, there is a /ess than significant impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact. The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County and the city of Fresno. This 34 HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any species covered by the HCP. The HCP also provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The proposed Project includes the development of 30 single family residential units and does not include any activities undertaken by PG&E. Since the proposed Project does not include PG&E activities, Project development would not conflict with the HCP.

The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any other approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in any impacts to an adopted HCP or NCCP. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the biological resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated March 6, 2025.

BIO-1: To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.
35 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey was conducted by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates (see Appendix D). The Phase I Cultural Resources Survey consisted of a pedestrian survey and a cultural resource record search.
36 For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.

Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub.

Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

One cultural resource was identified, C&B-3. C&B-3 is a 1950s, vernacular, rancher style, farmhouse. The construction of Highway 180 cut the farm into two pieces, leaving the farm no longer economically viable. The farmhouse and 3.8 remaining acres were sold to an investor, who has in turn sold the property to a residential 37 builder. The house, C&B-3 is a typical, if not large, rancher. The house does not contain any elements that would make it eligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources. The house is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion A). This house is not associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion B). This house does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion C). Lastly, this house will not yield, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation (Criterion D).

A prehistoric and historic site records and literature search was conducted for the Project area through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System on November 13, 2023 (File RS#23-460) (see Appendix D). Records indicated that there have been two previous cultural resources studies conducted within the Project area and four cultural resource studies conducted within the half-mile radius. There are no recorded resources within the Project area and nine recorded resources within the half-mile radius, which consist of single-family properties, a water conveyance system, trash scatter, and a prehistoric era lithic isolate. A review of the Sacred Lands Inventory by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was also performed and the results were negative.

Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the project area to date, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 shall be implemented to protect undiscovered resources. Adherence to this mitigation measure will result in a /ess than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Impact a) above, no surface or recorded evidence of sensitive cultural resources have 38 been recorded. However, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL - 1 will be implemented to ensure that Project will result in /ess than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the Project area yet, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities.

The discovery of human remains is regulated by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states, in part, that:
“(b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the humans remains are discovered has determined in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject toprovisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
(c) If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and of the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he 39 or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.”
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which would protect buried remains and reduce potential impacts to human remains to /ess than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated March 6, 2025.

CUL-1 If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. 40 CUL-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 Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment. 41 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the subdivision of the approximately 3.9-acre site into 30 single-family residential lots with public streets, two outlets, totaling 1,780 square feet for landscaping and pedestrian purposes. The Project would increase energy usage on a site that is presently demanding minimal energy.

During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy 42 in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards provide guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation and it is expected that contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to use recycled materials and products originating from nearby sources in order to reduce materials costs. As such, with adherence to Title 24 Standard, it is anticipated that materials used in construction and construction vehicle fuel energy would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Operational Project energy consumption would occur for multiple purposes, including but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting and electronics.

Operational energy would also be consumed during each vehicle trip associated with the proposed use. CalEEMod was utilized to generate the estimated energy demand of the proposed Project, and the results are provided in Table 4 and in Appendix A.

Table 4 - Annual Project Energy Consumption
Land Use Electricity
Use in
kWh/year
Single Family
Housing
238,169
The proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly increases energy savings, and it is generally assumed that compliance with Title 24 ensures projects will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As discussed in Impact XVII - Transportation/Traffic, at build-out the Project is expected to generate 283 weekday trips, 286 trips on Saturdays and 257 trips on Sundays, many of which will be peak hour trips. This will result in approximately 810,851 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The length of these trips and the individual vehicle fuel efficiencies are not known; therefore, the resulting energy 43 consumption cannot be accurately calculated. Adopted federal vehicle fuel standards have continually improved since their original adoption in 1975 and assists in avoiding the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy by vehicles.

As discussed previously, the proposed Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design standards at the local and state level. The Project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code and CALGreen. Adherence to state code requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non-renewable resources due to building operation.

Any impacts are /ess than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a vesting tentative tract map that would facilitate the construction and development of 30 new single-family lots, all of which would be built upon in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.

Compliance with established and applicable regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Moreover, compliance with Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting. In addition, the proposed project would constitute development within an established community. As such, the project would not be opening a new geographical area for development such that it would result in unusually long trip lengths for future project residents.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
44 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
45 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
46 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.

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Fault Rupture Zones Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation in 2018, the Project site is not located within a Fault-Rupture Hazard Area.7 Moreover, no active faults have been identified within the City of Fresno. The nearest zoned fault to the City is a portion of the Nunez Fault, located approximately 48 miles southwest of the City. Therefore, because no active faults occur within the City, impacts associated with fault rupture would be /ess than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the proposed Project site would be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life. The Project site would be engineered and constructed in strict accordance with the earthquake resistant design requirements contained in the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for seismic zone III, as well as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and therefore would avoid potential seismically induced hazards on planned structures. The Project’s impact on strong seismic ground shaking would be /ess than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 7 California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.qov/cqs/fam/. Accessed May 2024. 47 Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for soil liquefaction within the City of Fresno ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. The proposed Project will be subject to policies in the Fresno Municipal Code, including Section 11-101, which would reduce potential settlement and lateral spread impacts to /ess than significant levels.
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are the release of rock, soil, or other debris and its subsequent movement down a slope or hillside. Landslides occur during earthquakes, triggered by the strain induced in soil and rock by ground shaking vibrations, and during non-earthquake conditions, most frequently during the rainy season. Any slope of 15 degrees or greater is susceptible to mud or landslides. The Project area is generally flat in nature, with slopes nearly at zero degrees. As such, the Project site is not susceptible to mud or landslides during non-earthquake conditions during the dry or rainy season.

Additionally, the proposed Project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone as delineated by the 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act. No active faults have been mapped within the Project boundaries, so there is no potential for fault rupture. It is anticipated that the proposed Project site would be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life. The Project site would be engineered and constructed in strict accordance with the earthquake resistant design requirements contained in the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for seismic zone III, as well as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and therefore would avoid potential seismically induced hazards on planned structures. The impact of the Project on landslides would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 48 Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project involves ground preparation work for the new residential development, streets, and the associated improvements. These activities could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the Project site. During construction, nuisance flow caused by minor rain could flow off site. The City and/or contractor would be required to employ appropriate sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that is in the California National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of the SVJAPCD fugitive dust control measures (See Section III). Once construction is complete, the Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Adherence to local and state requirements will ensure that any impacts are /ess 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact a) above, the site is not at significant risk from earthquakes, ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslide and is otherwise considered geologically stable. Subsidence is typically related to over extraction of groundwater from certain types of geologic formations where the water is partly responsible for supporting the ground surface. However, the City of Fresno is not recognized by the U.S. Geological Service as being in an area of subsidence. 8 Impacts are considered /ess 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Surface and near-surface soils throughout the city of 8 U.S. Geological Service. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, https://ca.water.usqs.gov/land subsidence/california- subsidence-areas.html. Accessed October 2023.
49 Fresno consist of varying combinations of clays, silts, sands, gravels, and cobbles.

The Project site is underlain by Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes and Ramona loam (NCRS 2023). These soil types are considered well drained with a low ability for water storage, which means they are unlikely to expand. 9 Any impacts are /ess 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?
No impact. Under the approved City of Fresno General Plan, all development within the City limits is required to install public sewage collection and disposal systems. The Project does not include the construction or replacement of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Any existing on-site septic tanks and systems will be abandoned according to county standards. The Project will be required to tie into existing sewer services (See Utilities section for more details). Therefore, there is no impact.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no unique geological features on site or in the area. As discussed previously in this document, there are no known cultural or historical resources on or near the site. (See Section V. for more details). Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is included to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered resources. Therefore, there is a /ess than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
See CUL-1 in Section V.
9 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Eastern Fresno Area, California. 50 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would produce combustion emissions from various sources.

During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N20. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. 51 The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the annual emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would be approximately 280.6 metric tons of CO2e per year (see Appendix C). Construction GHG emissions were amortized over the life of the project (assumed to be 30 years) and added to the operational emissions.

When annualized over the life of the Project, amortized construction emissions would be approximately 9.4 MT CO2e per year.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle and truck trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile-source GHG emissions would include Project-generated vehicle trips to and from the Project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the Project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the Project. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed Project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing Project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed Project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

Following guidance from the SJVAPCD, GHG emissions for operation of the Project were calculated using CalEEMod. Based on the analysis results, summarized in Table 5, the proposed Project would result in emissions of approximately 368.2 MT CO2e per year. These estimated emissions are provided for informational purposes, and the significance of the proposed Project is further analyzed below. CalEEMod output sheets are provided in Appendix C. 52 Table 5: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category Bio-CO2 NBio-
CO2
Total
CO2
CH4 N20 CO2E
Area 0.000 13.3601 13.3601 0.001 0.000 13.4460
Energy 0.000 38.0426 38.0426 0.001 0.001 38.2686
Mobile 0.000 290.7521 290.7521 0.0148 0.0160 295.8938
Waste 7.2549 0.000 7.2549 0.4288 0.000 17.9737
Water 0.6201 0.000 0.6201 0.0637 0.0015 2.6606
Total 7.8750 342.1547 350.0297 0.5086 0.0185 368.2427
Notes: Due to rounding, total may be marginally different from CalEEMod output.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix C).

As discussed, the SJVAPCD has not established a numeric threshold for GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, 53 regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The City of Fresno does not currently have a GHG Reduction Plan.

Therefore, in the absence of any City or SJVAPCD specific guidelines or thresholds, this analysis evaluates the proposed Project for consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (Justification Report).10
In April 2022, the BAAQMD adopted the Justification Report document, which identifies applicable GHG significance thresholds. These thresholds establish whether a project would be consistent with California’s efforts to meet long-term climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and EVs, then it would 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 would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

The Justification Report provides substantial evidence supporting the use of their thresholds for projects throughout California because the thresholds are applicable to meeting the State’s established GHG reduction goals. In the absence of any City or SJVAPCD specific guidelines or thresholds, this analysis evaluates the proposed project for consistency with the identified project design elements from the Justification Report as the applicable thresholds of significance to establish if the proposed project is achieving its “fair share” of emission reductions to support long-term State goals for GHG emissions and carbon neutrality.

According to the Justification Report, a project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would include the following project design elements:
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/final-ceqa- thresholds-report-for-climate-impacts-02092022-alt-pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=2fa4a375066846eea15ab2fa124efc6a. Accessed November 2024.
54 1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas. 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 electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126(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%) 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% below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office Projects: 15% 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.

The City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds that identify City thresholds as 14.1 VMT per Capita Threshold for residential land uses and a 22.3 VMT per employee threshold for employee-based land uses. The residential VMT threshold will be used in this analysis.

Per the BAAQMD significance thresholds discussed above, a less than significant greenhouse gas (GHG) impact would occur if the project were consistent with the identified design standards, as evaluated below.
55 Natural Gas Usage
A less than significant GHG impact would occur if the project does not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. The proposed Project would not include natural gas. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this design element.

Energy Usage
Under this design criterion, the project must 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. As discussed in Impact VI a), the proposed Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design standards at the local and state level. The Project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code and CALGreen. Adherence to state code requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non-renewable resources due to building operation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with this design element.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
As discussed above, development that meets a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target would be considered to have a less than significant GHG emissions impact from transportation sources. As described in Impact XVII (b), the proposed Project will have less than significant impacts with SB 743 compliance.

On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020.

The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

One of the eligible screening criteria is if a residential project will generate less than 500 average daily trips (ADT) it is considered less than significant. In evaluating traffic generation for the Project, using the CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 56 (see Table 4.2 of Appendix C), the proposed Project will generate 283.2 Average Daily Trips (ADT) on weekdays, 286.2 ADT on Saturdays and 258.5 ADT on Sundays. These levels are below the 500 ADT thresholds within the City’s Guidelines for VMT analysis.

Further, the proposed Project will be developed in a lot surrounded by residential usesand would be located near established residential neighborhoods. In addition, the proposed project would include 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) building measures and Title 24 standards for solar and electric vehicles (EV). As such, the proposed Project would be designed to support alternative modes of transportation by including an EV charging station for each home and is not expected to significantly increase VMT in the Project area.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this project design element.

Electric Vehicle Requirements
The final project design element that the proposed project should include to ensure that it is achieving its “fair share” of GHG emission reductions is compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of the CALGreen Code Tier 2 measures. The proposed project would include an EV charging station for each home, consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 standards. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this design element.

In summary, the proposed Project would be consistent with the project design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and EVs. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG emission thresholds identified for this project and Project implementation would result in /ess than significant impacts. 57 b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following discussion evaluates the proposed Project according to the goals of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and Assembly Bill (AB)197.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps California on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan 58 states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the California Energy Commission, regarding energy conservation and green building standards.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions.

The project would comply with the CALGreen Code, which includes a variety of different measures, including the reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. The second phase of Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV 59 Ill) Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

In summary, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals and would be consistent with applicable State plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emsisions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Impacts are /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
60 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
61 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
62 DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, and other chemicals (e.g., paints, lead, adhesives, etc.) typically used during construction. It is likely that these hazardous materials and vehicles would be stored by the contractor(s) on-site during construction activities. Improper use and transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In addition, as discussed previously, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the Project and shall include emergency procedures for incidental hazardous materials releases. The SWPPP also includes Best Management Practices which includes requirements for hazardous materials storage.

The operational phase of the proposed Project would occur after construction is completed and residents move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis.

Residential land uses do not typically routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential hazardous materials such as cleaners, paint, petroleum products, etc. However, the potential for a significant hazard occurring from the use of everyday household products is low.

The use of hazardous materials would mostly be confined to the Project construction period. Any impacts are /ess 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?
63 Less Than Significant. The proposed Project includes the development of a 30-lot single-family residential development, including two outlets and other associated improvements. As discussed in Impact a) above, the use of hazardous materials would be primarily confined to the Project construction period and those materials would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. As such, there are /ess than significant impacts regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. Temperance Kutner Elementary School is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site, located at 1448 Armstrong Avenue. John S, Wash Elementary School is located approximately 1.0 miles southwest of the Project site, located at 6350 E. Lane Avenue. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the proposed Project site. Any hazardous materials contained, stored, or handled on site would be in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The immediate area surrounding the Project site is primarily comprised of residential purposes. Any impacts would be /ess than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 64 (Geotracker11 and Envirostor 12 databases - accessed in October 2023). There are no hazardous materials sites in the vicinity that impact the project. As such, any impacts would remain /ess than significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, which lies approximately 2.4 miles to the northwest. The Project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) 6 per the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 13 Aircraft accident risk level is considered to be low within this TPZ. The project will be required to follow Safety Criteria Matrix (Table 3A, ALUCP) for construction within the TPZ which includes but is not limited to:
• Airport disclosure notice required
• Airspace review required for objects >100 feet tall
• New structures are prohibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces
• New structures require additional airspace analysis required within the 50-foot terrain penetration buffer.

As the Project will be in compliance with the required Safety Criteria Matrix of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, any impacts are considered /ess than significant.
11 California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database. https://qeotracker.waterboards.ca.qov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Fresno. Accessed October 2023. 12 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.qov/public/map/.

Accessed October 2023.
13 Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2018, Part Two. Exhibit D1, Fresno-Yosemite INTL. Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones. https://fresnocoq.wpenqinepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/Q1/fresno-final-alucp- 113018-r part2.pdf. Accessed October 2023.
65 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant. The City’s design and environmental review procedures shall ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans. Additionally, the site plan will be reviewed by the Fire Department per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Fresno’s Emergency Operations Plan is located within the City’s General Plan Emergency Response Section. The proposed Project complies with the following policies included in the Emergency Response section of the City of Fresno’s General Plan:

Policy NS-6-b - Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.

Policy NS-6-f. Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new developments, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

Therefore, the proposed Project would have a /ess than significant impact on emergency evacuation.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No impact. Implementation of the project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires because there are no wildlands in the Project vicinity, thus precluding the possibility of wildfires. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
66 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

X
67 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
68 DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to impact water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during construction (temporary impacts) and operation. Impacts are discussed below.

Construction
Although the proposed Project site is relatively small in scale, grading, excavation and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.

Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These BMPs would be required in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared prior to commencement of Project 69 construction. When properly designed and implemented, these “good-housekeeping” practices are expected to reduce short-term construction-related impacts to less than significant.

In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, the Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

Operation
The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with site improvements, including new asphalt, concrete and the proposed structures on site. Urban runoff typically contains oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals) and other household pollutants. Precipitation early in the rain season displaces these pollutants into storm water resulting in high pollutant concentrations in initial wet weather runoff. This initial runoff with peak pollutant levels can be referred to as the "first flush" of storm events.

The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Fresno and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Design Standards.

In accordance with the City’s storm water management regulations and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program (General Stormwater Permit), BMPs would be implemented to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site. The management of water quality through the requirement to obtain a General Stormwater Permit and implement appropriate BMPs would ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. These are existing regulatory requirements. 70 In addition, the Project will generate typical wastewater (sewer) associated with residential developments and will connect to the City’s sewer system. The Project will not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Therefore, any impacts are /ess 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes a 30-lot single-family residential development. Each home will be equipped with typical restroom facilities.

The proposed Project consists of 30 dwelling units, and the average household size in Fresno is 3.07 14, therefore the Project will house approximately 92 people. As such, the proposed Project would result in estimated water demand of 18,216 gallons per day (92 people x 198 gallons/day15 = 18,216 gallons/day).

Water service would be provided to the Project by the City of Fresno. Based on the assumptions in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 16 the Project would not negatively impact water supplies or otherwise deplete groundwater supplies. Moreover, the proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere with groundwater recharge efforts being implemented by the City. The City’s UWMP contains a detailed evaluation of existing sources of water supply, anticipated future water demand, extensive conservation measures, and the development of new water supplies (recycled water, increased recharge, surface water treatment, etc.).

Measures contained in the UWMP as well as the City’s General Plan are intended to reduce demands on groundwater resources by augmenting supply and introducing conservation measures and other mitigation strategies. Additionally, stormwaterflows 14 U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Fresno City. 2017-2017. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitvcalifornia.fresnocountYcalifornia/PST045222. Accessed November 2023.
15 City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2021. Pg. ES-4. https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP Final 2021-07-21-1.pdf. Accessed November 2023. 16 Ibid.
71 would be directed through the curb and gutter system in the roadway, which would be directed to a FMFCD retention basin and would enhance groundwater recharge in the area. As such, a /ess than significant impact to a groundwater management basin would occur.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is comprised of a single-family residence and vacant disturbed land. The site is surrounded by urban development and agriculture. The single-family residence would be demolished and would be cleared of vegetation and leveled to accommodate construction.

The Project includes changes to the existing stormwater drainage pattern of the area through site construction activities, the installation of a 30-lot single-family residential development, including two outlots and other associated improvements.

The Project requires a Soils Report (i.e., Geotechnical Investigation) prior to granting of a grading permit. Because the Project would disturb more than one acre of land, an National Pollution Discharge Eliminate System (NPDES) permit and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be required prior to granting a grading permit. Preparation of the soils report as well as implementation of standard best management practices (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, rumble grate, etc.) which would be identified in the SWPPP would be effective in reducing erosion and siltation impacts on or off-site to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts with regard to substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site are considered /ess than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an area described as 1- Percent Annual Chance Flood Discharge Contained in Structure, Letter of Map 72 Revision (LOMR) 10-09-3948P, effective 10/13/2011 (Original Flood Map Area Number 06019C2135H, effective 2/18/2009) and is not considered a flood prone area. Project site development would result in the addition of impervious surfaces in the form of 30 residential buildings, internal driveways and a roadway. This will result in an increase in storm water runoff as well as the potential for contaminated runoff to enter FMFCD drainage basins. The Project site is surrounded by existing storm drainage infrastructure which was sized to accommodate future development/buildout of the General Plan. The proposed Project is designated and planned for urban development. Accordingly, infrastructure has considered this level of development in its capacity. Therefore, the Project will result in a /ess than significant impact regarding on- or off-site flooding.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Site runoff from precipitation currently either percolates into the ground where there are no impervious surfaces or drains into the City’s stormwater system and eventually into drainage basins that serve the area. Site re-development will result in the addition of impervious surfaces in the form of additional foundations, buildings, streets, and other paved surfaces. This will result in an increase in storm water runoff from the site and will increase the potential for contaminated runoff to enter FMFCD drainage basins or for drainage basins to overflow and cause flooding. However, the proposed Project will be designed to FMFCD and City of Fresno standards to prevent drainage overflow and flooding and the potential for contaminated runoff. The Project site has been anticipated for residential urban use by the City of Fresno General Plan. As with all developments, existing policies and standards are required to be complied with, which are assessed during design and review of entitlements by the City and FMFCD to ensure that none of the water quality standards are violated and that waste discharge requirements are adhered to during construction and operation of the Project.

The proposed Project will connect to the City of Fresno’s existing storm-drain system 73 and pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance. Impacts resulting from polluted runoff will be /ess than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an area described as 1- Percent Annual Chance Flood Discharge Contained in Structure, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 10-09-3948P, effective 10/13/2011 (Original Flood Map Area Number 06019C2135H, effective 2/18/2009). As discussed above in Impacts ii, the Project site is served with stormwater infrastructure that has been sized to accommodate the urban development. The Project would not impede or redirect flood flows as it has been designed with on-site storm drainage infrastructure that will connect with the City’s system. The impact will be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is within an area described as 1- Percent Annual Chance Flood Discharge Contained in Structure, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 10-09-3948P, effective 10/13/2011 (Original Flood Map Area Number 06019C2135H, effective 2/18/2009). There are no bodies of water near the site that would create a potential risk of hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow.

The Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. As mentioned in Impact c) above, all new development within the City of Fresno Planning Area must conform to standards and plans detailed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. By conforming to all standards and policies as outlined, any impacts will remain /ess than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fresno is part of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) which is one of the seven GSA’s within the 74 Kings Groundwater Subbasin. The North Kings GSA submitted the Groundwater Sustainability Plan to the CA Department of Water Resources in January 2020. The City of Fresno relies on natural groundwater recharge, subsurface inflow, and intentional recharge to replenish groundwater. As the City of Fresno will provide water to the proposed Project (upon approval), and the City will be subject to the requirements of the GSA, the proposed Project does not conflict with any adopted water quality or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Potential stormwater flows would discharge to on-site stormwater infrastructure and be conveyed to FMFCD retention basins. No stormwater flows would directly discharge to the San Joaquin River thereby avoiding water quality impacts. Any impacts would be /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XL LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
75 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently designated by the City of Fresno General Plan for Residential, Low Density planned land use. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, vacant shop and parking spaces and vacant disturbed land. The site does not include an established community. The proposed Project land use designation allows for densities between 5 to 12 units per acre, intended to provide for single-family detached housing. The proposed Project would include 30 units on approximately 3.9 acres of land, for a density of approximately 8 dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-303, fractions of one-half (0.5) or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number and fractions of less than one-half (0.5) shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. Specific to residential density rounding, fractions only apply to minimum density, but not maximum density. In this case, 7.69 dwelling units per acre would be rounded up to 8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the minimum density requirement per the Fresno General Plan. Within the Project vicinity, there are single-family residences, active agricultural land, and a church surrounding the proposed Project. The proposed residential use is allowed within this land use designation, after the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, TTM and Planned Development Permit. The Project is not dividing an established community.

The Project is not being built in a pre-existing community area and would not create any physical barrier between an established community. Any impacts are /ess than significant.
76 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?
No impact. The proposed Project is located in an area that is planned for residential and urban development by the City. The site is currently designated as Low Density Residential and has a corresponding zone of RS-3 / UGM (Residential Single Family, Low Density/Urban Growth Management. As part of the Project, the site will be redesignated to Medium Density Residential and rezoned to RS-5 / UGM (Residential Single Family, Medium Density/Urban Growth Management, which would be similar to the existing residential development immediately to the west. In addition to the General Plan Amendment and rezone, approval of a Planned Development Permit would allow for smaller lot sizes, lesser setbacks and higher maximum lot coverage than what is allowable by the RS-5 / UGM zone.

The proposed subdivision is a standard infill development being proposed in compliance with the City’s planned land use designation within the City limits. Infill development contributes to environmental preservation by reducing agricultural land conversion, reduce costs to build and maintain infrastructure, and improving air quality by overall reducing travel distances and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions.

Further, through the entitlement process, the Project has been reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Overall, the entitlement process would ensure that the proposed Project complies with the General Plan, FMC, and any other applicable policies and regulations.

In conclusion, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and not significantly conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of the City of Fresno.

Nompacts will occur.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
77 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?
No impact. Mineral resources are concentrated along the San Joaquin River Corridor.

The proposed Project is not located along the San Joaquin River Corridor, there are no known mineral resources in the proposed Project area, and none are identified in the City’s General Plan near the Project site. Therefore, there is no impact. 78 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? No impact. As discussed in Impact a) above, there are no known mineral resources identified in the City’s General Plan in the proposed Project area. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
79 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X

DISCUSSION
80 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Short-term (Construction) Noise Impacts
Proposed Project construction related activities will involve temporary noise sources.

Typical construction related equipment includes graders, trenchers, small tractors, and excavators. During the proposed Project construction, noise from construction related activities will contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity.

Activities involved in construction will generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 7, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise controls.

Table 7: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise
Control
With Feasible Noise
Control
Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
81 The distinction between short-term construction noise impacts and long-term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short-term noise from construction is inevitable and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short-term noise at levels that they would not accept for permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and might preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time in urban environments. Most residents of urban areas recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion.

Construction activities would not occur between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, and not at all on Sundays, in accordance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-109, which limits work hours “to between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM on any day except Sunday.”
Long-term (Operational) Noise Impacts
The proposed Project includes future residential uses. The primary source of on-going noise from the Project will be from vehicles traveling to and from the site and from traffic traveling along Hwy 180, Belmont Avenue, East McKenzie Avenue, as well as the proposed internal access roads. The immediate vicinity consists of existing and planned residential uses, which produce noise levels that are likely similar to long term noise levels produced by the proposed Project. Additionally, all surrounding properties are adjacent to collector and arterial streets, which increase the ambient noise of the Project site. The proposed Project is not projected to be a long-term noise source due to the Project being a use consistent with neighboring land uses.

The proposed Project will not introduce a new significant source of noise that isn’t already occurring in the area. Therefore, the impact is considered /ess than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The dominant sources of man-made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail-car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed Project. Detectable vibration generated from Project operations is not anticipated while vibration from construction activities 82 could include various types of construction heavy equipment, as detailed in Table 8.

Table 8: Typical Vibration Levels During Construction17 Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV) (inches/second) at
25 feet
Approximate Vibration
Level (LV) at 25 feet
Bulldozer (Large) 0.089 87
Bulldozer (Small) 0.003 58
Loaded Truck 0.0176 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
The primary source of vibration during Project construction would likely be from a large bulldozer (tractor), which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB; however, the vibration would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration. There are no aspects of construction or daily operations that would create excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. As such, any impacts would be /ess 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?
17 US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. chrome-

ual.pdf. Accessed November 2024.

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Man 83 Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport or airstrip is the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 2.4 miles northwest of the Project site.

The site is within the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Zone 6- Traffic Pattern Zone. Zone 6 encompasses the areas falling within the regular aircraft traffic patterns determined in accordance with the 14 CFR Part 77 Conical Surface. Additionally, it’s important to note that, as per the Handbook and the California Code of Regulations, residential uses are not considered suitable in areas with noise levels exceeding 65 dB.

The proposed Project is inside the noise level contour identified in the ALUCP (Figure D2, Fresno Council of Governments, 2018) and forecast at 60 dB CNEL. In conclusion, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site to excessive noise levels associated with such airport facilities, and there would be /ess than significant impact.

As such, impacts will remain /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
84 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As of 2022, the population in Fresno is 545,567 people with an average household size of 3.07. 18 The Project will construct housing with 30 dwelling units, which will house approximately 92 persons. The City’s General 18 U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Fresno City. 2017-2017. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitvcalifornia.fresnocountYcalifornia/PST045222. Accessed November 2023.
85 Plan encourages residential developments to meet the future population growth needs. This Project accommodates this anticipated increase in City’s population by providing 30 new residences for existing and future residents.

The Project site is currently designated for Low Density Residential use in the City’s General Plan and is zoned as RS-3/UGM (Single-Family Residential, Low Density/Urban Growth Management). The Project site has a proposed designation of Medium Density Residential as per the City’s General Plan and a proposed rezoning of RS-5 (Medium Density Residential), which changes the allowed density from its current rate of 3.5-6 dwelling units per acre to 5-12 dwelling units per acre. Upon approval, the Project will be consistent with both the General Plan and zoning ordinance. Additionally, the Project proposes 30 single-family residential lots on 3.9 acres, a density of only 7.69 dwelling units per acres, which is in the lower half of the permitted range of density for the proposed land use designation and zoning.

Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is occupied by a main residence and an accessory dwelling unit, a shop and associatd parking spaces, and is surrounded primarily by residential development. As proposed, the Project will displace existing housing; however, the Project will provide 30 new homes to a community in need of additional housing in the area. There is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
86 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:

X
Fire protection?
X
Police protection?
X
Schools? X
Parks?
X
Other public facilities? X
87 DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less Than Significant. The Project includes construction of a 30-lot single-family residential unit development, including two outlots and other associated improvements.

The City of Fresno Fire Department (Fire Department) offers a full range of services including fire prevention, suppression, emergency medical care, hazardous materials, urban search and rescue response, as well as emergency preparedness planning and public education coordination within the Fresno City limit, in addition to having mutual aid agreements with the Fresno County Fire Protection District, and the City of Clovis Fire Departments.

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

The proposed Project would be served by the current Fire Station 15, which is located at 5630 E. Park Circle Drive, approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the 88 Project site. After reviewing the Project, the Fire Department has determined that the Project can be adequately serviced by the current local Fire Facilities and Personnel, consistent with National Fire Protection Association 1710 Objectives.

Additionally, the project will also be subject to Fire Facilities Fees.

Project implementation will result in /ess than significant impacts.

Police protection?
Less Than Significant. The Project includes construction of a 30-lot single-family residential unit development, including two outlots and other associated improvements. The surrounding area is currently protected by the existing Southeast Police District, approximately 4.9 miles to the southwest at 1617 S.

Cedar Avenue. The Fresno Police Department provides a full range of police services including uniformed patrol response to calls for service, crime prevention, tactical crime and enforcement (including gang and violent crime suppression), and traffic enforcement/accident prevention. The proposed Project would also be protected by the Southeast Police District and would be subject to pay development impact fees to offset any potential impacts to police protection.

Additionally, the Fresno Police Department reviewed the Project and had no comments. Any impacts are considered /ess than significant.

Schools?
Less Than Significant. According to the Clovis Unified School District, the schools that will serve the proposed project are Temperance-Kutner Elementary School, approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the Project, Reyburn Intermediate School approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the Project, and Clovis East High School also approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the Project.

The proposed residential uses result in the generation of students, which would impact the District’s student classroom capacity. Any future development occurring as a result of the proposed Project may have an effect on the Clovis Unified School District’s student housing capacity. The District, through local funding, is in a position to mitigate its shortage of classrooms to accommodate 89 planned population growth for the foreseeable future. 19 However, the District recognizes that the legislature, as a matter of law, has deemed under Government Code Section 65996 that all school facilities impacts are mitigated as a consequence of SB 50 Level 1,2, and 3 developer fee legislative provisions.

The developer will pay appropriate impact fees at time of building permits. The proposed Project will not result in the need for construction of new school facilities. Impacts would be /ess than significant.

Parks?
Less Than Significant. The Project includes construction of a 30-lot single-family residential unit development, including two outlots and other associated improvements.

The nearest park is Al Radka Park, approximately 1.0 miles northwest of the Project. The City of Fresno maintains a park goal to provide five acres of city park space per 1,000 residents. To meet this park goal, , pursuant to FMC Section 12-

4.705 a.i - for residential subdivisions with tentative maps containing fifty parcels or less, such as the proposed Project, the subdivider shall pay in-lieu fees only in order to finance park facilities and to pay for the development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.

The Project review and approval process will ensure that all park related fees are paid by the applicant. These requirements will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect park and recreation facilities. Impacts would be /ess than significant.

Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant. The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services are available to serve the Project site subject to compliance with the conditions submitted by the DPU for this Project and implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies and, the construction and installation of public facilities and infrastructure in accordance with Department of Public Works standards, specifications and policies. 19Clovis Unified School District. Education-Related Legislation. https://www.cusd.com/EducationLegislation.aspx. Accessed November 2024. 90 For sanitary sewer service, these infrastructure improvements and facilities include typical requirements for the construction and extension of sanitary sewer mains and branches. The proposed Project will also be required to provide payment of sewer connection charges.

No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of the construction of any such facilities or improvements associated with the proposed Project. Impacts would be /ess than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
91 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?
Less Than Significant. The Project does not include common activity areas; thus, the proposed Project may result in the physical deterioration of existing parks or recreational facilities.
92 Al Radka Park lies approximately 1.0 mile to the northwest of the Project and Apricot- Hamilton Park is 1.6 miles to the south of the Project. There are also two schools with sports fields and other outdoor areas located within a mile of the Project; one to the northwest and one to the southwest.

As noted in Impact XV(c), the Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees pursuant to FMC Section 12-4.705(a)(i) in order to finance park facilities and to pay for the development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. Park and recreation fees, per the Quimby Act, are collected for new residential developments. The Project review and approval process will ensure that all park related fees are paid by the applicant. These requirements will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect park and recreation facilities. Impacts would be /ess 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?
Less Than Significant. As discussed above, the Project includes construction of a 30-lot single-family residential unit development, including two outlets and other associated improvements; however, no parks are included in Project development.

Therefore, through the standard City building process for the future park and payment of the required development fees, the Project will not significantly affect park and recreation facilities. The Project would not result in any new recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on environmental impacts and are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
93 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? 94 Less Than Significant. Within proximity to the Project, there are several transportation facilities, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Transit Services
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the transit operator in the City of Fresno. The closest bus stop is for FAX Route 35, approximately 1.8 miles west of the proposed Project site at Belmont and N. Clovis Avenue. Route 35 operates at 30-minute intervals on weekdays and weekends. The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing transit facilities because few people will use the transit system. The construction of 30 units with an additional 92 people is not anticipated to create delays in bus service in the area.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The 2017 City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP) refers to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for classification of bicycle facilities as follows:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for nonmotorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): On-street facilities that use striping, stencils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): On-street pavement markings or signage that connect the bicycle roadway network along corridors that do not provide enough space for dedicated lanes on low-speed and low-volume streets. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeways): Physically separated bicycle facilities that are distinct from the sidewalk and designed for exclusive use by bicyclists. Commonly known as “cycle tracks,” they are located within the street right-of-way but provide similar comfort when compared to Class I Bikeways.

The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing or planned bicycle facilities.

The proposed Project will not require any changes to existing transportation systems and will have no impact on any plans, ordinances, or policies related to the effectiveness or performance of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Project will comply with all applicable City development standards. Any impacts would be less than significant.
95 b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities is no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.” On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1,2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7.

The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the 96 preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

The City of 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.”
One of the eligible screening criteria is whether a residential project is located within an area with low VMT, as designated in the screening map for residential uses (Figure 6) in the City of Fresno’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds Technical Advisory.

These low VMT areas were calculated using Fresno County as the region. The Fresno County average VMT per capita is 16.10. Figure 6 of the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines indicates that the Project area maintains18.07 VMT per capita, which is slightly more than the County average of 16.10.

Additionally, in evaluating traffic generation for the Project, using the CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 (see Table 4.2 of Appendix C), the proposed Project will generate 283.2 Average Daily Trips (ADT) on weekdays, 286.2 ADT on Saturdays and 258.5 ADT on Sundays. These levels are below the 500 ADT thresholds within the City’s Guidelines for VMT analysi or for requiring the preparation of a traffic impact study.

This results in a /ess than significant impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will be designed to current standards and safety regulations. All intersections will be constructed to comply with the City and Caltrans regulations, and design and safety standards of Chapter 33 of the 97 California Building Codes (CBC) and the guidelines of Title 24 in order to create safe and accessible roadways.

Vehicles exiting the subdivision will be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstructions. Landscaping associated with the entry driveways could impede such views, if improperly installed. Specific circulation patterns and roadway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the project area would not occur. Therefore, with the incorporated design features and all applicable rules and regulations, the Project will have a /ess than significant impact.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. State and City Fire Codes establish standards by which emergency access may be determined. The proposed Project would have to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks to turn around. The Fresno City Fire Department reviewed the proposed Project plans and determined access is acceptable as proposed. The proposed project site would have adequate internal circulation capacity including entrance and exit routes to provide adequate unobstructed space for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to gain access and to turn around. The proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.
98 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESO URCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
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
99 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evi
dence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision!)
of PRC section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivisl (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
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
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) is defined under Public Resources Code section 21074 as a site, 100
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included and that is listed or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or in a local register of historical resources. The proposed Project site is currently occupied by a main residence and an accessory dwelling unit, a shop and associated parking spaces, and is surrounded primarily by residential development. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix D) and it was determined that while the residence on-site constitutes a historical resource, it does not have any elements that would make it eligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Places or in a local register of historical resources.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah were invited to consult under both AB 52 and SB 18. The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed Project to each of these tribes on October 20, 2023, which included the required 90-day time period for tribes to request consultation. Following the close of the 90-day comment period, City staff confirmed that no comments were received.

It has been determined that there are no known Tribal Cultural Resources on the proposed Project site. Because the Tribes did not request consultation, because of compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as discussed in Section V, and because of the implementation of CUL-1 which will protect any unknown resources, any impacts to TCR’s are /ess than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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.
101
Less Than Significant Impact.

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Native American tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria, and Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), 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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This list includes tribes that requested notification pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City of Fresno mailed notices of the proposed 102
project to each of these tribes on October 20, 2023, which included the required 90-day time period for tribes to request consultation, which ended on January 18, 2024. All tribes which were contacted declined consultation.

Additionally, and as described in Impact XVIII (a)(i), above, the proposed Project site is currently occupied by a main residence and an accessory dwelling unit, a shop and associated parking spaces, and is surrounded primarily by residential development. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix D) and one cultural resource, the house, was identified.

Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The house does not contain any elements that would make it eligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources. The house is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1). This house is not associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2). This house does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3). Lastly, this house will not yield, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation (Criterion 4).
103
As such, it is determined that the residence on-site does not have any elements that would make it eligible for nomination to the California Register of Historic Places or in a local register of historical resources.

Therefore, there is a /ess than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

1. The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the tribal cultural resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated March 6, 2025.

See CUL-1 in Section V.

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
104

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
105

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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will require construction of new infrastructure to connect to the existing utility infrastructure. This will include water, wastewater, and storm water drainage connections. Additionally, the Project will include connections for electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The installation of this infrastructure will not require any major upsizing or other offsite construction activities that would cause a significant impact. The new infrastructure would be connected to the existing infrastructure that is adjacent to the Project site.

Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed under the Hydrology and Water Quality section included within this analysis herein above. As described in Section VII, Geology and Soils, and in compliance with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, the proposed Project would design and submit a site-specific SWPPP to minimize the discharge of wastewater during construction and a Water Quality Management Plan that includes best management practices (BMPs) for runoff control as required. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new stormwater drainage facilities to manage stormwater runoff during construction or operation.

The proposed Project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.

Sanitary sewer and water service under City of Fresno jurisdiction delivery is also subject to payment of applicable connection charges and/or fees. Compliance with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies; the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Health Services; and, implementation of the City-wide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply, treatment, and storage ensures that impacts would be /ess than significant.
106
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under the Section VII Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Initial Study, the Fresno General Plan recognizes regional water resource planning efforts, such as, the Kings Basin’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan and cites the findings of the City of Fresno 2020 UWMP. The purpose of these management plans is to provide safe, adequate, and dependable water supplies in order to adequately meet existing and future needs of the Kings Basin regions and the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area in an economical manner; protect groundwater quality from further degradation and overdraft; and provide a plan of reasonably implementable measures and facilities. Through routing to the applicable departments and agencies, the City has determined that adequate water supply exists to serve the proposed Project. Additionally, the applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities to reduce the Project’s water impacts to /ess than significant. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. See Impact (b) above. The City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewer Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and the North Fresno Wastewater Treatment Facility (NFWTF). The Regional Facility provides wastewater treatment for a service area that includes most of the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, and some unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The City is currently evaluating upgrades and modifications to the existing Regional Facility that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15.0 MGD. The City of Clovis owns 9.3 MGD of wastewater treatment capacity at the Regional Facility, and the City of Fresno owns the remaining capacity.
107
The NFWTF was constructed in late 2006 to provide wastewater treatment service for residential and commercial development in the surrounding area of north Fresno.

The permitted capacity of the NFWTF is 0.71 MGD, as an average monthly flow, and

1.07 MGD, as a maximum daily flow. The City's master plan for the NFWTF calls for ultimate expansion to an average monthly flow capacity of 1.07 MGD upon full development of the NFWRF service area.

The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has reviewed the Project and determined that sanitary sewer facilities are available to provide service to the site, subject to the required conditions of approval. The City will provide sewer connection.

The conditions of approval include payment of the applicable sanitary sewer fees, which would eventually be used to provide funding for the improvements at the RWRF and NFWTF in order to expand. The proposed Project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be /ess 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Solid Waste Division has reviewed the Project for compliance with any federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Solid waste disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once the 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 six miles southwest of Kerman.

American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers. The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for a nonhazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day. 108
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10-AA-0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31,2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.

In the operational phase, typical household refuse would be generated by residences. According to CalRecycle, residential units average 12.23 lbs. 20 of household refuse per day. The proposed 30 units would generate approximately 366.9 lbs. per day, or approximately 67 tons per year. Given the available capacity at the American Avenue Landfill, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed Project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. Furthermore, the site is designated by the General Plan for residential uses and as such, site development has been accounted for in the City’s infrastructure planning documents, including waste management. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply provisions of AB 939, which calls for a 50% reduction in the waste sent to landfill.

The Project will comply with any statutes and regulations related to solid waste and as such, the proposed Project would not result in any waste related environmental impacts, and impacts would be /ess than significant.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact.

The proposed Project will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the disposal of solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste regulations. Furthermore, Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste would be 20 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed November 2023.
109
handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with AB 939 and CALGreen regulations related to solid waste.

In compliance with CALGreen Section 4.408, the Project will undertake construction waste management practices, which include recycling and salvaging a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Exceptions are made for excavated soil and landclearing debris. The enforcing agency may identify alternate waste reduction requirements in cases where diversion facilities necessary for compliance are not reasonably available near the job site. To adhere to these requirements, the Project will submit a construction waste management plan signed by the owner, which will identify the materials to be diverted from disposal through recycling, reuse, or salvage, and specify whether materials will be source-separated or bulk mixed. Documentation will be maintained to demonstrate compliance with these regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on solid waste regulations.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
110

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
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
111

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
Setting
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. Although this CEQA topic only applies to areas within an SRA or Very High FHSZ, out of an abundance of caution, these checklist questions are analyzed below.

DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The City of Fresno does have an adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP); however the EOP does not designate evacuation routes, which may not be necessary since Fresno does not face any expected natural hazards from likely sources or locations. 21 The Project site will connect to an existing network of City streets. The Project site is located in an area with several alternative access roads allowing access in the event of an emergency. Access to the alternative access roads would be maintained throughout construction, and appropriate detours would be e Fresno General Plan. Chapter 9: Noise and Safety. Page 9-40. https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/upload temp Consolidated-GP-10-13-2022 compressed.pdf. Accessed 5/2024. 112
provided in the event of potential road closures. The City of Fresno Fire Department oversees emergency response and preparedness.

Therefore, no significant impacts related to the impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There is 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately urban, which is not considered a significant risk for wildlife. There are minimal amounts of highly flammable fuels such as dry grass in the area. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a wildfire, the project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts will be /ess 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?
No impact. The Project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage) required to support the proposed residential uses. The Project site is surrounded by existing and future urban development. The infrastructure required by the Project is not expected to exacerbate fire risk. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. 113
However, the development will meet local and State development codes and regulations related to fire protection and prevention. There is no impact. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site and do not result in downstream flooding or major drainage changes. A storm drainage plan would be designed and engineered to ensure the proper construction of storm drainage infrastructure to control runoff and prevent flooding, erosion, and sedimentation.

Upon development of the site, stormwater would flow to the existing storm drains in the adjacent roadways. Any further storm drain requirements will be processed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District and constructed per the District’s standards. Additionally, the Project site is within an area described as 1-Percent Annual Chance Flood Discharge Contained in Structure, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 10-09-3948P, effective 10/13/2011 (Original Flood Map Area Number 06019C2135H, effective 2/18/2009). Further, because the site is essentially flat and located in an existing urbanized area of the City, downstream landslides would not occur.

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
114

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
115

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 116
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is developed with a single family residence and highly disturbed vacant land that is regularly disked for weed control. The site includes the development of 30 residential units which will be connected to the adjacent residential development. As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 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. Mitigation measures have been included to lessen the significance of potential impacts. Similar mitigation measures would be expected of other projects in the surrounding area, most of which share similar cultural, paleontological, and biological resources. Consequently, the incremental effects of the proposed project, after mitigation, would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on these resources. Therefore, the project would have a /ess than significant impact.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project-related impacts were determined to be either less than significant, or less than significant after mitigation. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). Due to buildout of the area and existing land constraints, it is not anticipated that further unplanned substantial residential 117
development will occur in the area in the foreseeable future. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the lack of proposed new development in the area and the insignificance of Project-induced impacts. The impact is therefore /ess than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Project-specific mitigation measures have been incorporated as described in each specific impact area which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/pl anning-and-research/ceqa/final-ceqa-thresholds-report-for-climate-impacts-02092022- alt-pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=2fa4a375066846eea15ab2fa124efc6a. Accessed November 2024.

California Department of Transportation. State Scenic Highway Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcqis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc 8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed February 2024.

California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed October 2023. 118
California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed May 2024.

California Department of Conservation. Land Evaluation & Site Assessment (LESA) Model.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/gh lesa.aspx#:~:text=The%20Land%20Ev aluation%20and%20Site%20Assessment%20%28LESA%29%20Model,agricultural%20 land%20resources%20based%20upon%20specific%20measurable%20features.

Accessed October 2023.

California Department of Conservation. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. Instruction Manual. 1997.Page 2. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/gh lesa.aspx. Accessed October 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/. Accessed October 2023.

California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Fresno.

Accessed October 2023.

CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed November 2023.

City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2021. Pg. ES-4. https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP Final 2021- 07-21-1.pdf. Accessed November 2023.

Clovis Unified School District. Education-Related Legislation. https://www.cusd.com/EducationLegislation.aspx. Accessed November 2024.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2018, Part Two. Exhibit D1, Fresno-Yosemite INTL. Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones. https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/Q1/fresno-final- alucp-113018-r part2.pdf. Accessed October 2023.
119
Fresno General Plan. Chapter 9: Noise and Safety. Page 9-40. https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/upload temp Consolidated-GP-10- 13-2022 compressed.pdf. Accessed 5/2024.

Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report Public Review Draft. March 2020. https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-GP-Public-Review- Draft-Proqram-EIR.pdf. Accessed May 2024. Page 4.4-3.

U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Fresno City. 2017-2017. https://www.census.gov/guickfacts/fact/table/fresnocitycalifornia, fresnocountycalifornia/ PST045222. Accessed November 2023.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Eastern Fresno Area, California.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.g ov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed November 2024.

U.S. Geological Service. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html . Accessed October 2023.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands Mapper, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed March 2024.
120
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for
T-6441/P23-01117/P23-03735 Residential Project
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed P23-01117/T-6441/P23-03735 VTTM 6441 Residential Project (project). The MMRP, which is found in Table A of this section, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements.

The MMRP must be adopted when the City Council makes a final decision on the proposed project.

This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the adoption of an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Timing for Mitigation Measure,” refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The third column, entitled “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled “Verification,” will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to the project specific mitigation. 1 This page left intentionally blank.
2 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)

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

Lighting systems to be
confirmed during plan
check, prior to issuance
of building permits
Project Applicant and
project architect
City of
Fresno,
Public Works
Department
(PW) and
Planning and
Development
Department
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
III. AIR QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: To the extent practicable,
construction shall be scheduled to
avoid the nesting season, which
extends from February through
August. If it is not possible to
schedule construction between
September and January, pre
construction surveys for nesting
birds shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to ensure that no
active nests would be disturbed
Prior to initiation of any
site
preparation/construction
Project Applicant and
Qualified Biologist
City of
Fresno,
Planning and
Development
Department
3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
during the implementation of the
Project. A pre-construction survey
shall be conducted no more than 14
days prior to the initiation of
construction activities. During this
survey, the qualified biologist shall
inspect all potential nest substrates
in and immediately adjacent to the
impact areas. If an active nest is
found close enough to the
construction area to be disturbed by
these activities, the qualified biologist
shall determine the extent of a
construction-free buffer to be
established around the nest. If work
cannot proceed without disturbing
the nesting birds, work may need to
be halted or redirected to other areas
until nesting and fledging are
completed or the nest has otherwise
failed for non-construction related
reasons.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: If previously unknown
resources are encountered before or
during grading activities,
construction shall stop in the
immediate vicinity of the find and a
qualified historical resources
Planning and
Development
Department to review
contract specifications
to ensure inclusion of
provisions included in
Project Applicant and
qualified historical
resources specialist
City of
Fresno,
Planning and
Development
Department
4 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
specialist shall be consulted to
determine whether the resource
requires further study. The qualified
historical resources specialist shall
make recommendations to the City
on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the
discovered resources, including but
not limited to excavation of the finds
and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance. If
the resources are determined to be
unique historical resources as
defined under Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines, measures shall
be identified by the monitor and
recommended to the Lead Agency.

Appropriate measures for significant
resources could include avoidance
or capping, incorporation of the site
in green space, parks, or open
space, or data recovery excavations
of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the
area of the discovery until the Lead
Agency approves the measures to
protect these resources. Any
project-specific
mitigation measure.

Following discovery of
previously unknown
resource, a qualified
historical resources
specialist shall prepare
recommendations and
submit to the Planning
and Development
Department. Timing for
recommendations shall
be established by
project-specific
mitigation measure.
5 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
historical artifacts recovered as a
result of mitigation shall be provided
to a City-approved institution or
person who is capable of providing
long-term preservation to allow
future scientific study.

CUL-2: In the event that human
remains are unearthed during
excavation and grading activities of
any future development project, all
activity shall cease immediately.

Project Applicant and
qualified historical
resources specialist
City of
Fresno,
Planning and
Development
Department
6 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
remains, the landowner shall ensure
that the immediate vicinity, according
to generally accepted cultural or
archaeological standards or
practices, where the Native
American human remains are
located is not damaged or disturbed
by further development activity until
the landowner has discussed and
conferred with the most likely
descendants regarding their
recommendations, if applicable,
taking into account the possibility of
multiple human remains. The
landowner shall discuss and confer
with the descendants all reasonable
options regarding the descendants'
preferences for treatment.

VI. ENERGY
There are no significant impacts to Energy.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 included above in Section V, Cultural Resources, would apply to the project VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
There are no significant impacts to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There are no significant impacts to
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
7 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to
Hydrology and Water Quality.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are no significant impacts to Land Use and Planning.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Mineral Resources
XIII. NOISE
There are no significant impacts to
Noise
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
There are no significant impacts to Population and Housing.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
There are no significant impacts to
Public Services
XVI. RECREATION
There are no significant impacts to Recreation.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION
There are no significant impacts to Transportation.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 included above in Section V, Cultural Resources, would apply to the project XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no significant impacts to
Utilities and service systems.

XX. WILDFIRE
8 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MEASURE Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials
and Date)
There are no significant impacts to Wildfire.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
There are no significant impacts
related to the mandatory findings
of significance.

Source: City of Fresno ([October 2023]).
9

Fresno City CouncilMay 22, 2025

Fresno City Council
May 22, 2025