Exhibit M
Eo05l00001
CITY OF FRESNO
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICANT:
F ’ L E
JUL 1 6 2025TIME
(:/8pn
FRESNO CI lit
By
DEPUTY
PROJECT LOCATION:
APN(s): 310-052-27, -26T & -22
The full Initial Study is on file in the Planning and Development Department, Fresno City Hall, 3 rd
Floor, Room 3043, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.
Brandon De YoungDe Young Properties
677 West Palmdon Drive, Suite 208
Fresno, CA 93704
Site Latitude: 36° 45’ 59.46” NSite Longitude: 119
0 39' 27.72” W
Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, Township 13S, Range 21E, Section 26 Located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, between North Temperance and North De Wolf Avenues in the County of Fresno, California (See Exhibit A - Vicinity Map)
Filed with the
FRESNO COUNTY
CLERK
2220 Tulare Street,
Fresno, CA 93721
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR T-6502/P24-04526/P24-
04527/P25-00027
E2051000018)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
development standards to allow for private streets; a reduction in the minimum lot size, width, and 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. depth; a reduction in the minimum garage, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks; and, an increase in the maximum lot coverage requirement
The City of Fresno has prepared an Initial Study of the above-described project and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ernie Escobedo of QK, Inc., on behalf of Brandon De Young of De Young Properties, has filed Annexation Application No. P24-04526, Pre-zone Application No. P24-04527, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 (T-6502), and Planned Development Permit Application No. P25-00027 pertaining to approximately 39.51 acres of property located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, between North Temperance and North De Wolf Avenues.
Annexation Application No. P24-04526 proposes to detach the property from the Kings River Conservation District and Fresno County Fire Protection District and annexation to the City of Fresno.
Pre-zone Application No. P24-04527 proposes to pre-zone: approximately 25.36 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural) zone district to the City of Fresno RS-4 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Low Density) zone district; and, approximately 15.5 acres of the subject property from the Fresno County AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural) zone district to the City of Fresno OS (Open Space) zone district.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 proposes to subdivide approximately 23.56 acres of property into a 119-lot single-family residential development.
Planned Development Permit Application No. P25-00027 proposes to modify the RS-4 zone district E20o-510000(8
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.
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 August 5, 2025. Please direct comments to Rob Holt, Supervising Planner, City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043, Fresno, California, 93721-3604; or by email to [email protected].
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.
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.
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.
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 Rob Holt at (559) 621-8056 or via email at [email protected] for more information.
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).
Eo50006/9/
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED BY:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
DATE: 07/16/2025
CITY OF FRESNO
Attachments: Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Rob Holt, Supervising
Planner
' f i few E Normal Ave L
• -
E University Ave
| C 1; —1 • u • .
o
C
g
.... u.I.•
E Pcrelta Way
Mli
7 "If
- z
Eellbc
5 — Geimge
ei
T
G
a
in —
.3
c
R.
' ; thei—rd
3 r
Li—
M t Welden Ave
1..T......[....[...j..
ICNJOOL.
3•. 4
. ...2 2
1j -
|
. —
F McKneY AVe E McKinley Ave
.... aif Na.5f-*r
•=======m=mm.mm=m m"
Inley Ave
..i
I 207 OED]
T
J ...:
I CY —L-LJ i I
e '
€ Vassar Ave E Vassor Ave
ta t "
!
"FTG
1 11 Y I0 i 5 - -
o ■
E Yale Ave
. 18.6 0 a 26
■
1. .ll JL ,48.10*
L C
// z
" I
f
41 Vxginiz R Sort
Eomentary
2 E Berkeley Ave
I.. ? i r
l
I
w
o
g ‘ [7
ses
!03
5 1 i is
i 3
WI t Pine Avs
E Pine Av,
i
I
|
EQ005 000018/
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
N
Legend
Annexation Area W E
Subdivision Area s
I
I
MM MM MM
I
R Temperance Ave
-J
1 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Form for:
T-6502/P24-04526/P24-04527/P25-00027
1. Project title:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map T-6502. Application No. P24-04042 Annexation Application No. P24-04526
Pre-zone Application No. P24-04527
Planned Development Permit Application No. P25-00027
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:
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
(559) 621-8056
4. Project location:
7298 E McKinley Ave, Fresno, CA 93737: generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue (APNs: 310-052-27, 310-052- 26T, and 310-052-22).
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Brandon De Young
De Young Properties
677 West Palmdon Drive #208
Fresno, CA 93704
6. General & Community plan land use designation:
Medium Low Density Residential (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
7. Zoning:
AE-20 – Exclusive Agriculture (County)
8. Description of project:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 (Project) is generally located on the north side of East McKinley Avenue, east of North Temperance Avenue. The Project is located 2 immediately east of the City of Fresno (City) corporate limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, and lies within the boundaries of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
The Project is located on an undeveloped approximately 24-acre parcel (APN 310- 052-27) to be developed as part of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502. The Project includes the annexation of the Project site, and two adjacent parcels owned and maintained by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), APNs 310-052- 26T and 310-052-22 (Annexation Only Area). Environmental analysis of these parcels in this document is for annexation purposes only. No development is proposed regarding the parcels owned and maintained by FMFCD. These two parcels are currently developed with a Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canal and ponding basin.
The Project site is designated as Medium Low Density Residential (3.5 - 6 dwelling units [du] / acre) in the City of Fresno 2035 General Plan. The Annexation Only Area is designated as Open Space – Ponding Basin in the City of Fresno 2035 General Plan and comprises approximately 18 acres.
De Young Properties is requesting approval of the following entitlement applications:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map (T-6502) Application No. P24-04042 proposes to subdivide the 24-acre Project Site (APN 310-052-27) into 119 single-family lots, 28 of which are proposed to be within a gated HOA. The proposed residential subdivision includes a 1.32-acre trail and accompanying 11,000 square foot park
• The associated Pre-zone Application proposes to pre-zone approximately 24 acres from the Fresno County Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum (AE20) designation to the City of Fresno RS-4 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Low Density) zone district and 18 acres (Annexation Only Area) from the Fresno County Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum (AE-20) designation to the City of Fresno OS (Open Space) zone district. • The associated Annexation Application proposes the annexation of APNs 310-052-27, 310-052-26T, and 310-052-22 into the City limits and the removal of these properties from the Kings River Conservation District and the Fresno County Fire Protection District.
• The associated Planned Development Application proposes to modify the RS-4 zone district development standards of the gated HOA portion of the proposed subdivision to allow for private streets, a reduction in the minimum lot size, width, and depth, and a reduction in the minimum garage, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks, and an increase in the maximum lot coverage requirement.
On- and off-site improvements including circulation roads, interior local streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, water and sewer utilities, and landscaping would be developed to City standards by the Project developer. Water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Fresno. The Tentative Tract Map T-6502 is presented in Appendix A. 3 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North
Medium Low
Density Residential
(3.5-6 D.U./acre);
Open Space -
Ponding Basin
O – Open Conservation
(County); RS-4 - Residential
Single-Family, Medium Low
Density (City)
Vacant; Open
space/canal; Open
Space/ponding
basin; Residential
Single-Family, Low
Density
East Open Space -
Ponding Basin
AE-20 – Exclusive Agricultural
(County); O – Open
Conservation (County);
Vacant; Open
space/canal
South
Medium Density
Residential (5.0-12
D.U./acre)
RR – Rural Residential
(County); AE-20 – Exclusive
Agricultural (County)
Open space/ag
West
Medium Low
Density Residential
(3.5-6 D.U./acre)
RS-4 - Residential SingleFamily, Medium Low Density
(City)
Residential SingleFamily, Medium
Low Density; Open
space/ag
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
• City of Fresno Department of Public Works
• City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
• City of Fresno Fire Department
• City of Fresno Police Department
• Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
• Fresno Irrigation District
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the California 4 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, before public distribution of the document, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed Project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a 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.
Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). A certified letter was mailed to the above mentioned tribes on February 20, 2025. The 30-day comment period ended on March 20, 2025. Neither tribe requested 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 5 ☐ 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:
___ 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. ___________________________________________________07/16/2025______ Rob Holt, Supervising Planner Date
1. For purposes of this Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
6 a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant. c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant. For purposes of this Initial Study “mitigation incorporated into the project” means mitigation developed specifically for an individual project. d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from, "Earlier Analyses," as described in (6) below, may be cross-referenced).
7 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 b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. The City’s approved General Plan identifies six locations along the San Joaquin River bluffs as designated vista points from which views should be maintained. Scenic vistas within the Planning Area could provide distant views of features such as the San Joaquin River to the north and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east.
The proposed Project site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by similarly undeveloped land to the north and east, agricultural operations to the south, and a residential subdivision to the west. The proposed Project would include a 119-lot single-family subdivision, a 1.32-acre trail, 11,000 square foot park, and associated 9 improvements. The Project site is not located within any of the scenic vista points identified in the General Plan. Furthermore, the construction of the proposed Project would not significantly affect or block a potentially scenic vista in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Fresno1. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of State Route (SR) 180, located approximately 1111 miles east of the Project, and a portion of SR 168, located approximately 5 miles northwest of the Project site. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the City within the county of Madera. Since there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within or in close proximity to the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. Therefore, there would be a less than significant 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?
The Project site is currently undeveloped. Although the proposed Project would change the visual characteristics of the site by introducing a residential subdivision, the design of the additions would be consistent and compatible with the visual character of the single-family residential subdivision located immediately west of the Project site in addition to another subdivision and elementary school located north of the Project site. Although the characteristics of the Project site would change, the Project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings as the area is currently being developed with similar residential uses.
Therefore, the proposed Project would appear to be similar to nearby properties and have a less than significant impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project site is located in an area that is becoming increasingly urbanized and is 1 California Department of Transportation. 2024. Scenic Highways. Available online at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenichighways (accessed January 2025) 10 subject to preexisting exterior lighting from surrounding developments and existing street lighting. The proposed Project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the area in the form of street lighting, nighttime vehicle lights, windows, and porch lights. However, new sources of light and glare associated with the Project would not be substantial in the context of existing lighting sources in the Project vicinity. This takes into consideration the existing residential developments west of the Project site in addition to traffic along McKinley Avenue as being existing sources of light and glare. The resulting light and glare produced from the Project would be similar to existing conditions. In addition, daytime glare would not be substantial because no highly reflective glass elements or building materials are proposed as part of the Project. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards, and implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES2 would address light and glare impacts to day and night-time views resulting from construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, potential light and glare from the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
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.
AES‐2: Materials used on building facades shall be non‐reflective. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
12 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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 nonforest use?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) has classified the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
2 . According to the DOC, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act land use contract. If a project were to convert any amount of acreage from Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland then that project would potentially result in a significant impact under the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. However, since the Project site is not under cultivation and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance under the DOC FMMP, it would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources under CEQA. Therefore, impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland to a nonagricultural use would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The Project site is designated Residential – Medium Low Density and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) annexation area is zoned Open Space – Ponding Basin and Residential – Medium Low Density in the General Plan. The Project is located in the unincorporated County and is in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture) zoning district under the Fresno County Zoning Ordinance. As noted above, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 2 California Department of Conservation. 2020. California Important Farmland Finder. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed January 2025) 13 The Project site is located within the SOI of the Fresno and has been designated for residential and open space land use under the City General Plan. The Project proposes to develop the site for residential purposes which is consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Both the City and County of Fresno have adopted policies regarding development within the City sphere of influence. Fresno County General Plan Policy LU-G.1 acknowledges that cities have primary responsibility for planning within their LAFCo-adopted spheres of influence and are responsible for urban development and the provision of urban services within their sphere of influence. LU-G.6 states that the County encourages City’s to incorporate in their general plans land use policies that minimize potential land use conflicts with agriculturally related industrial operations and other agricultural activities at the urban interface through the provision of appropriate buffers or other measures. City General Plan Objective RC-9 states that agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization should be preserved. Under City General Plan Policy LU-1-g, the City will maintain the current SOI boundaries without additional expansion, except to allow for the siting of a maintenance yard for the California High Speed Train project and related industrial and employment priority areas proximate to and south of the SOI boundary between SR 41 and SR 99.
The Project proposes to pre-zone the Project site to the City’s RS-4 (Single-Family Residential, Medium Low Density) zone district and the Annexation Only Area to the City’s OS (Open Space) zone district to match the planned land use designation for each parcel. Therefore, although the site is currently zoned for agricultural use, its location within the Fresno SOI allows the noted General Plan Policies for orderly expansion within the Fresno County General Plan, and managed growth under the City of Fresno General Plan would allow for the proposed annexation, and prezoning to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant 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))?
The Project site is located within an existing urban area and is proposed to be prezoned to RS-4 when annexed into the City of Fresno. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 12220(g)), forest land is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions. PRC Section 4526 defines timberland as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products. The Project is devoid of trees and does not meet the criteria to be defined as such. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land 14 or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Please refer to the discussion for (c) above. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Please refer to the discussion for a) and c) above.
The Project site is not classified as Important Farmland under the FMMP. The site is undeveloped is located within an increasingly urban environment that is predominantly planned for future residential development and therefore would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural uses or forest land to nonforest uses. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is required.
15 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
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
The analysis in this section is substantiated by an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Assessment3, prepared for the Project and is attached as Appendix B. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Assessment evaluated the build out of a larger number of residential lots than what is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the estimates resulting from the Project would be less than those discussed in this IS/MND. 3 QK. 2025a. Air Quality Impact Analysis
16 DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a 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 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 PM10 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 µg/m3, established in 2012.
The SJVAPCD has established project construction and operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants, as shown in Table 3-1 below4. For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD attainment plans, the pollutants emitted from project operation should not exceed the SJVAPCD daily thresholds, cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the attainment plans projection.
Table 3-1 SJVAPCD Project Construction and Operational Emission Thresholds
CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Annual Construction Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Annual Operational Emissions* 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Source: __.
*Emission units = Tons per Year (tpy)
CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size NOX = nitrogen oxides ROG = reactive organic gas SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides Construction and operational emissions for the proposed project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1.29 (CalEEMod). Model 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Available online at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-PollutantThresholds-of-Significance.pdf (accessed May 2025) 17 results for construction and operational emissions are shown in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 respectively.
Table 3-2: Project Construction Emissions (Tons Per Year) Project Construction CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
2025 Construction 1.49 1.37 0.15 <0.005 0.18 0.10
2026 Construction 1.87 1.33 0.16 <0.005 0.09 0.05
2027 Construction 0.29 0.20 0.77 <0.005 0.01 0.01
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.87 1.37 0.77 <<0.005 0.18 0.10 SJVAPCD Thresholds 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
*Emission units = Tons per Year (tpy)
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
Table 3-3: Project Operational Emissions (Tons per Year) ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Project Operational
Emissions* 1.67 0.72 5.01 0.01 0.90 0.24
SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
*Emission units = Tons per Year (tpy)
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
The results shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 indicate that the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans and the impact would be less-thansignificant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of construction- or operationalrelated criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the 18 SJVAPCD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions during project construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less-than-significant c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers. The nearest residential sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is located adjacent to portions of the Project’s sites. Table 3-4 lists the known non-residential sensitive receptors within one mile of the Project site.
Table 3-4
Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project
Receptor Type of Facility
Distance from
Project (miles)
Direction
from Project
Virginia R. Boris Elementary School 0.12 NW
Temperance Kutner Elementary School 0.79 SW
Young Elementary School 0.90 N
Ohana Care Home Central Valley Assisted Living 0.78 N
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptors when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, and are typically associated with diesel particulate matter resulting from diesel engine equipment and vehicle use
The proposed Project would result in emissions of HAPs from construction activities and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.
To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over the construction period for construction emissions. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risks is the 19 identification of sources with increased HAPs. HAP emissions from anticipated on-site construction activities were evaluated.
Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) software distributed by the CARB. HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source.
SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing 20 additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled with a 3-year exposure for construction activities.
The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of 20 in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP
Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard Index
Construction 15.90E-06 8.35E-03
SJVAPCD Threshold 20.0E-06 1.0
Exceedance? No No
Receptor # 57 57
UTM Easting (m) 262873.11 262873.11
UTM Northing (m) 4072237.61 4072237.61
Source: Appendix B
The maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 15.90E-06. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 8.35E-03.
Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect on any of the surrounding communities.
The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:
1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors.
2. hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.
3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk was not calculated since there is no acute risk associated with DPM emission; therefore, the proposed 20 Project is considered below the significance level.
Long-term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the site and sources such as lawn maintenance equipment.
Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a Project’s most substantial air quality impact. As noted in Table 3-3 above, the Project’s operational impacts by pollutant all fall well below the adopted SJVAPCD threshold for any criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, Project impacts are considered less than significant. Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:
1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate.
2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources” (SJVAPCD, 2015).
The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 of the GAMAQI (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors” (Appendix B). Uses identified in GAMAQI as potential odor sources include wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, asphalt batch plants, food processing facilities, and rendering plants. Because the Project’s anticipated land uses and activities are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.
Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (Appendix B). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds, nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.
21 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
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
23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
The analysis in this section is substantiated by Biological Resources Evaluation prepared for the Project5 and is attached as Appendix C.
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? A reconnaissance-level field survey of the Project site was conducted on December 12, 2024, by qualified biologists (Appendix C). The Biological Study Area (BSA) consists of the entire 24-acre Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project site. The Project is located at the interface of urban and rural land uses. The Project site is bounded by active orchard to the south, the FMFCD stormwater basin and canals to the northeast, agricultural on the east and residential and an additional stormwater basin to the north and west. The Project site was historically developed with a single-family residence and accessory structures on the northern portion of the site, with the remainder being mostly unimproved. However, improvements have been removed from the Project site. The Project site consists of non-native annual grassland species and ruderal species. Dominant species identified at the time of the survey included Bromus sp. (Bromus sp.), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolayum). Eucalyptus (Eucalyptud sp.) and chinaberry (Melia azedarach) are present within the BSA to the north of the Project site. The large eucalyptus trees within the BSA could support nesting birds and/or 5 QK. 2025b. Biological Resources Evaluation, Blossom View Tract 6502 Project 24 raptors, but there were no nests observed. Smaller ornamental trees associated with private residences to the west and north of the Project site within the BSA, could support nesting passerine bird species.
California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows and sign were observed throughout the BSA but not on the Project site. Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), sized burrows, valley pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae) sized burrows, and small mouse (Peromyscus sp.) burrows, and numerous California ground squirrel burrow complexes were found along the banks of Mill Ditch No. 36.
Special-Status Plant Species
Eleven special-status plant species were identified in the literature and database review that are known or have potential to occur within the nine-quadrangle IPac and 10-mile radius of CNDDB queries centered on the Project site. Table 4-1 provides a list of special-status plant species that could occur within the region based on literature and database review.
Table 4-6
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring the Region
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Carex comosa bristly sedge 2B.1
Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
succulent owl’s-clover FT, SE, 1B.2
Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower FE, SE, 1B.1 Eryngium spinosepalum spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B.2
Imperata brevifolia California satintail 2B.1
Lagophylla dichotoma forked hare-leaf 1B.1
Leptosiphon serrulatus Madera leptosiphon 1B.2
Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass FT, SE, 1B.1 Pseudobahia peirsonii San Joaquin adobe sunburst FT, SE, 1B.1 Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead 1B.2
Tuctoria greenei Greene’s tuctoria FE, 1B.1
Abbreviations:
1B.1 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Seriously Endangered in California
1B.2 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Fairly Endangered in California.
1B.3 California Native Plant Society List 1B Species-Plants Categorized as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Not Very Endangered in California
2B.1 California Native Plant Society List 2B Species-Plants Categorized as Endangered in California; Seriously Endangered 2B.2 Native Plant Society List 2B Species-Plants Categorized as Endangered in California; Fairly Endangered in California FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SE California State Endangered Species
Source: Appendix C
No special-status plant species were observed within the BSA. There is no habitat present on the Project site or within the BSA that would support any special-status plant species queried during the database search. The Project site is degraded from 25 historical land use, mainly for agricultural operations and residential development, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed by ongoing agricultural and residential uses.
Special-Status Wildlife
Twenty-five special-status wildlife species were identified in the literature and database review that are known or have potential to occur within the nine-quad search area centered on the Project site (Table 4-2). There are no historical records from the CNDDB of special-status wildlife species within the Project site.
Table 4-7
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region Scientific Name Common Name Status
Insects
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble bee -,SE
Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly FC, -
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT, - Crustaceans
Branchinecta conservatio conservancy fairy shrimp FE, - Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, -
Fishes
Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt FT, SE
Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead -, SSC
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander FT, ST Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT, SSC
Spea hammondii western spadefoot -, SSC
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard -. SSC Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake -. SSC Emys marmorata western pond turtle -, SSC
Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, SE, FP
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard -, SSC
Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake FT, ST
Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST, SSC
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl -, SC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk -, ST
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat -, SSC
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat FE, SE Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat -, SSC
Taxidea taxus American badger -, SSC
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
26 Abbreviations:
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
FC Federal Candidate for Listing
SC California State Candidate Species
SE California State Endangered Species
ST California State Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern Source: Appendix C
Dens suitable for special-status species, San Joaquin kit fox, three potential dens were present within Project site and two others were found within the BSA. There were scat and prey remains on the den entrances and prey remains were observed within BSA. Signs (scat, a much larger den, etc.) of a larger canid (Canis latrans) and domestic dog (Canis familiaris) were seen along portions of the 250-foot buffer.
Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock doves (Columba livia), and a spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius).
No suitable habitat or host plants were observed for Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch butterfly, or Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. No vernal pool or continuous water resources habitat exist for conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, delta smelt, hardhead, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle or red-legged frog.
No suitable habitat exists for western spadefoot, Northern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, coast horned lizard or giant garter snake. No suitable nesting habitat exists for tricolored blackbird, western yellow-billed cuckoo or Least Bell’s vireo. No roosting or maternity sites exist for pallid bat. No burrows suitable for Fresno kangaroo rat exist on the Project site.
Of the species with potential for occurrence in the BSA it was determined that four of the species could occur on the Project site. The four species are burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, and potential impacts of the Project to these species are described below.
Western Burrowing Owl
Typically, this species can be found in a variety of habitat types, including grasslands, deserts, or other open habitats where food resources are available and contain treeless areas with low vegetation cover and gently sloping (Appendix C).
Burrowing owls use earthen burrows, typically relying on other fossorial mammals to construct their burrows, such as American badger (Appendix C). In California, burrowing owls are associated with California ground squirrels, which were on site during the reconnaissance survey. They use a burrow throughout the year for temperature regulation, offspring rearing, shelter, and escape from predators. While burrows are most often earthen, they have been documented using atypical burrows such as pipes, culverts, and other man-made structures as burrows, most often as 27 shelter (Appendix C). Burrowing owls can have several burrows close to one other that they may frequently use to avoid predators.
There are three CNDDB recorded occurrences for the species within 10 miles of the BSA. The closest CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 103146) is approximately
0.5 miles northeast of the BSA and is from 1990 (Appendix C). No burrowing owl or diagnostic sign (e.g., burrows, whitewash, prey remains, or feather) were observed during the survey. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals. While burrowing owls are not commonly adapted to human interactions and noises, they have been found in urbanized settings. Suitable foraging and burrowing habitats are present within the BSA, and the species may pass through as transients or become an inhabitant in the future if current conditions are not changed.
There is no evidence that western burrowing owls are present within the BSA, but the Project site has suitable foraging and burrowing habitat for a transient owl. Because this species is highly mobile, there is potential for western burrowing owls to become established in these areas or be present from time to time throughout the BSA as transient foragers.
Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active western burrowing owl burrow or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities. Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in burrows, trenches, or pipes could occur if a western burrowing owl occupies the construction or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if burrowing owls are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. These potential impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3. BIO-1 would require a pre-activity survey be conducted, BIO-2 establishes avoidance buffers, and BIO-3 requires work stoppage and assessment by the lead biologist. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce impacts to the species to a less than significant level.
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawks occur in grassland, desert, and agricultural landscapes throughout the Central Valley and Antelope Valley (Appendix C). Some hawks may be resident, especially in the southern portion of their range, while others may migrate between winter and breeding habitats. They prefer larger isolated trees or small woodlots for nesting, usually with grassland or dryland grain fields nearby for foraging and have been known to nest in large eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) along heavily traveled freeway corridors. Swainson’s hawks forage in grassland, open scrub, pasture, and dryland grain agricultural habitats, primarily for rodents, and exhibit moderate to high nest site fidelity for successful nest sites.
28 There are two CNDDB recorded occurrences for the species within 10 miles of the BSA (Appendix C). The closest CNDDB recorded occurrence (EONDX 91594) is approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the BSA and is from 1956, it is mapped to the east of Fresno with low accuracy. A more recent record with a high level of locational accuracy is (EONDX 106840) from 2016 and is 8.1 miles southwest of the Project site.
It was an active nest with successfully fledged young. The BSA could provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat based on prey species (i.e., California ground squirrel) and the stand of eucalyptus trees in the 250-foot buffer to the north and northwest of the Project site that were present during the survey. There was no sign of Swainson’s hawk nests or individuals observed during the survey.
Swainson’s hawk were not observed nesting nearby or observed foraging during the survey. The Project site is not considered a high-quality nesting habitat. Although no nests were observed, potential suitable nesting sites are located within the BSA associated with ornamental trees in surrounding residential areas and along the north side of the Project site. Suitable prey species (e.g., California ground squirrels) are throughout the BSA and provide foraging for Swainson’s hawk.
Impacts to individual nesting Swainson’s hawk outside of the Project site are not expected if construction activities occur near an active nest. Due to the distance from the site and other human activities that occur continually in this populated area, the noise and vibration from construction of the Project and the presence of construction workers are unlikely to alter the normal behaviors of nesting adults because the species has adapted to the noises and is known to nest adjacent to construction sites without reproductive loss. These potential impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of BIO-1, which requires a pre-activity survey be conducted, BIO-5 requires a specific survey for nests, and BIO-6 requires an assessment of Swainson’s hawk nests should one be identified within 0.5 miles of active construction. The implementation of BIO-1, BIO-5 and BIO-6 would reduce impacts to this species to less than significant levels.
Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). No bird nests were identified during the site survey. However, the BSA supports several habitats for nesting birds, which may nest on trees and shrubs, man-made structures, and directly on the ground. Migratory birds could nest throughout the entire BSA.
Construction activities and vegetation removal could lead to the destruction of nests.
Construction-related vibration, noise, and dust production, and human presence could alter the normal behaviors of nesting birds in the vicinity of the Project and lead to nest failure. The implementation of BIO-1 (pre-activity survey), BIO-2 (avoidance buffers), BIO-3 (work stoppage and lead biologist assessment), BIO-4 (avoidance and minimization measures), BIO-5 (Swainson’s hawk nest pre-construction survey), BIO6 (nest assessment), and BIO-7 (nest buffer), would reduce impacts to nesting birds. 29 Therefore, BIO- 1 through BIO-7 are recommended to be implemented during construction to reduce impacts to migratory bird and other biological resources to less than significant levels.
American Badger
The American badger is an uncommon, permanent resident at lower elevations throughout California except for the northern North Coast (Appendix C). They can typically be found in grasslands, deserts, and drier habitats. Badgers are typically nocturnal and hunt or forage at night while spending daylight hours below ground.
Normally, they have a single den entrance that is approximately 8 to 12 inches in width, in an elliptical or half-moon shape, similar to their body shape. Dens are usually found in friable soils which are easier to dig in. American badgers spend most of their time near a den; however, they may have multiple dens in an area that can be used at the same time. American badgers are able to dig a new den each night. During cooler nights, the entrance to the den may be partially plugged with soil to help regulate temperatures.
There is one CNDDB recorded occurrence for the species within 10 miles of the BSA(Appendix C). The closest record (EONDX 56616) is approximately 2.30 miles northwest of the Project site and is from 1987. No American badger or diagnostic sign (i.e., dens, claw marks, scat, tracks, or prey remains) were observed during the survey. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals (e.g., California ground squirrel). Suitable foraging and denning habitats are present within the BSA. The dens observed in the BSA were too small to be made by American badger, and they are unlikely to be present within the BSA.
Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active American badger den or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities. Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in dens, trenches, or pipes could occur if an American badger occupies the construction area or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if badgers are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. Implementation of avoidance measures The implementation of BIO-1 (pre-activity survey), BIO-2 (avoidance buffers), and BIO-3 (work stoppage and lead biologist assessment), as listed below, would reduce any potential impacts to the American badger to less than significant levels.
San Joaquin kit fox
The San Joaquin kit fox is a subspecies of kit fox that is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley, Carrizo Plain, and Cuyama Valley, as well as other small valleys in the western foothills of the Central Valley of California (Appendix C). They occupy arid to semiarid grasslands, open shrublands, savannahs, and grazed lands with loose-textured soils. San Joaquin kit foxes are well-established in some urban areas and are highly adaptable to human-altered landscapes. They generally avoid intensively maintained 30 agricultural land but will forage into croplands surrounding suitable habitat. This species is a highly mobile transient forager that preys on small burrowing mammals (e.g., California ground squirrel), but will consume a variety of prey, and has adapted well to urbanized settings, even feeding on anthropogenic food sources. San Joaquin kit fox use subterranean dens year-round for shelter and pup-rearing. They are nocturnally active but may be above ground near their dens during the day, particularly in the spring.
There is one CNDDB recorded occurrence for the species within 10 miles of the BSA (Appendix C). The closest recorded occurrence (EONDX 70606) is approximately six miles southeast of the Project site and is from 1980. No San Joaquin kit foxes were observed during the survey. Fox diagnostic signs (e.g., tracks, scat, prey remains, or dens) were observed during the survey. Three potential canid dens, potentially transient San Joaquin kit fox, were observed with prey remains and scat on and around the den apron were within the Project site. The other two dens were located within the 250-foot buffer. Suitable foraging and denning habitats are present within the BSA, and the species may pass through as transient foragers or become an inhabitant in the future if current conditions are not changed. According to the database search, reliable sightings of San Joaquin kit fox have occurred in Fresno County in over 40 years, although gray and red fox sightings are prevalent in the area.
Gray and red fox will typically displace kit fox and these species do not occur simultaneously. It is presumed that the dens were occupied by either red fox, gray fox, or coyote dens. San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely to be present within the BSA.
Potential impacts to this species could occur if there is an active San Joaquin kit fox den or transient individual within or near the area of development during construction activities. Potential direct impacts resulting in injury, death, or entrapment in dens, trenches, or pipes could occur if a San Joaquin kit fox occupies the construction area or travels through. Noise, vibration, and the presence of construction workers could alter normal behaviors if kit foxes are present, which could affect reproductive success and overall fitness. Implementation of BIO-1 (pre-activity survey), BIO-2 (avoidance buffers), BIO-3 (work stoppage and lead biologist assessment), and BIO-4 (avoidance and minimization measures) would reduce impacts to the species to less than significant levels.
To avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, migratory birds and other special-status species, avoidance, and minimization measures of BIO-1 (pre-activity survey), BIO-2 (avoidance buffers), BIO-3 (work stoppage and lead biologist assessment), BIO-4 (avoidance and minimization measures), BIO-5 (Swainson’s hawk nest pre-construction survey), BIO6 (nest assessment), and BIO-7 (nest buffer),are recommended to be implemented during construction to reduce impacts to these biological resources.
Therefore, the proposed Project would potentially result in direct or indirect adverse 31 effects of special-status plants or wildlife, however, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through BIO-7 and the impact would be less than significant.
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?
Future development that occurs in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, its tributaries, any lakes or streams, and/or open grasslands with seasonal wetlands, may result in a significant impact to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community.
Literature results from the nine-quadrangle queries for the Project site revealed four sensitive natural vegetation communities: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, and Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool.
No sensitive natural communities were present within the BSA. Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool and Sycamore Alluvial Woodland communities were not present within the BSA. Several small pools of water were observed within a naturally formed ditch between land parcels along the southern boundary of the Project site, but this feature lacked the hardpan soil characteristics required for both vernal pool communities and lacked the vegetation characteristic of these communities (native annual herbs and grasses).
No sensitive vegetation communities occur on-site. The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities, and no mitigation measures are required. 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 wetland or water features will be impacted within the Project site. All water features (Mill Ditch No. 36 and Redbank Slough) are either within the 250-foot buffer or outside of the BSA. All construction activities will occur within the Project boundary and will not impact the canal or slough.
The NHD and NWI identify two water features, to the north and northwest are Mill Ditch No. 36 and Redbank Slough that feeds into the riparian corridor to the north and northeast of the Project area, both are in the 250-foot buffer and beyond (Appendix C). Both features are classified by the NHD as canal ditches, and the NWI identifies them as Cowardin code R4SBCx; a riverine system, seasonally flooded stream bed 32 with an unconsolidated bottom that is anthropogenic in origin (Appendix C).
The Project site is flat except for areas that have been excavated (house demo, irrigation removal, tree removal and chipped). There should be no runoff water from the Project into any water resources that are under the federal jurisdiction of the ACOE or EPA or that are under the regulatory authority of the CDFW or Flood Water District.
No wetland or water features will be impacted within the Project site. The Mill Ditch No. 36 and Redbank Slough are either within the 250-foot buffer or outside of the BSA but are not located on the Project site. All construction activities will occur within the Project boundary and will not impact the canal or slough. There are no impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Open space areas, undeveloped land, and agricultural land are mainly located along the boundaries of the City, particularly near the northern boundary along the San Joaquin River corridor. The San Joaquin River corridor functions as a wildlife movement corridor for a number of terrestrial and aquatic mammals and birds. The San Joaquin River corridor facilitates movement of wildlife species from the City to the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and open agricultural land to the west.
The Project is not within any designated critical habitat areas. The nearest critical habitat is approximately 6.30 miles northeast from the BSA, and is for fleshy owls clover (Castilleja campestris ssp.). The CDFW database did not identify any corridors, however the Redbank Slough feeds into the riparian corridor into Mill Ditch No. 36.
This riparian corridor Is to the north of the Project site and will not be impacted by development of the Project. Wildlife utilizing this corridor would presumably already tolerate a fairly high level of anthropogenic disturbance and are not expected to be substantially affected by residential buildout of the Project site. Project impacts to wildlife movement corridors are considered less than significant. The Project is situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for most wildlife species The Project would not impact any designated Critical Habitat. Avoidance and minimization measures are not warranted. Project activities would not have a significant impact on any movement corridors or habitat linkages. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 33 biological resources. Though the proposed Project is subject to provisions of the City’s Municipal Code regarding trees on public property (Article 3 of Section 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code)) and the City’s General Plan (Chapter 5, Parks, Open Space, and Schools), the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the existing ordinances or policies for protecting biological resources. Under the General Plan, Objectives POSS-5 was adopted in the General Plan to provide for long-term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.
Implementing POSS-5-c requires development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value. In consideration of the Fresno Municipal Code and the City’s General Plan’s policies for protection of biological resources, the Project does not conflict the Municipal Code or General Plan. As a result, there would be 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?
The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)6 was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. This HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. This Project is not covered by the PG&E HCP.
The Project site is not located within the covered area of any HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP. Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 are largely consistent with avoidance and minimization measures included in the PG&E HCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E HCP and the proposed Project and would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a preactivity survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species. Surveys for active, known, potential, and natal SJKF dens within and adjacent to the Project Area will be conducted following the USFWS’ “Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) prior to or during ground disturbance” (2011).
Surveys for active western burrowing owl burrows within and adjacent to the 6 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2007. PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/plan_documents/thcp/thcp_838.pdf (accessed December 2024)
34 Project Area will be conducted following the CDFG’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (2012). If, during construction activities, a live burrowing owl, American badger, or SJKF is encountered, all construction activity shall stop in the affected area until the animal leaves of its own volition. The special-status species shall be avoided by construction activities and construction workers and allowed to leave the Project site without harassment. If no evidence of special status species is observed during the survey, no further action is warranted,
‘ b) A report outlining the results of the preconstruction clearance survey shall be prepared and submitted to City of Fresno prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
BIO-2 Within 14 days prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing activities, a preconstruction activity survey with a 250-foot buffer where land access is permitted shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these species and approved by the CDFW. Surveys need not be conducted for all areas at one time; they may be phased so that surveys occur within 14 days of the portion of the Project Site that will be disturbed. If dens/burrows that could support any of these species are discovered during the pre-activity survey (BIO-1), the avoidance buffers outlined below shall be established. No work would occur within these buffers unless the biologist approves and monitors the activity.
Western Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• April 1-August 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance– 500 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• August 16-October 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance – 200 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• October 16-March 31
o Low disturbance – 50 m
o Medium disturbance – 100 m
o High disturbance – 500m
American Badger/SJKF
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100-feet
• Natal or pupping den – 500 feet, unless otherwise specified by CDFW. 35 If burrowing owl are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, consultation with CDFW may allow burrow exclusion by a qualified biologist and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance.
BIO-3 If evidence of these species is observed, a qualified biologist shall remain oncall throughout the construction phase if a western burrowing owl, American badger, or SJKF occurs on the site during construction. If one of these species occurs on-site, work shall be halted in that area. The biologist shall be contacted immediately to determine whether biological monitoring or the implementation of avoidance buffers may be warranted.
BIO-4 The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented during all phases of the Project to reduce the potential for impact from the Project. They are modified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered SJKF Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011, Appendix E).
a. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction or Project Site. b. Construction-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads and predetermined ingress and egress corridors, staging, and parking areas. Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph) within the Project Site.
c. A Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program shall be prepared and presented to all workers that will be on-site during construction activities d. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit fox or other animals during construction, the contractor shall cover all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep at the close of each workday with plywood or similar materials. If holes or trenches cannot be covered, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed in the trench. Before such holes or trenches are filled, the contractor shall thoroughly inspect them for entrapped animals. All construction-related pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four-inches or greater that are stored on the Project Site shall be thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If at any time an entrapped or injured kit fox is discovered, work in the immediate area shall be temporarily halted and USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted.
e. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored 36 at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS and CDFW have been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
f. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. g. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides and herbicides in Project sites shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS and CDFW. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of the proven lower risk to kit foxes. h. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS. i. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a SJKF during Project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at (559) 243-4014 and [email protected].
j. All sightings of the SJKF shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below.
k. Any Project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions, or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825- 1846, phone: (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600.
BIO-5 If Project construction activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-construction activity surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended 37 Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (CDFG, 2000). The timing and the number of phases of surveys can be adjusted based on the timing of the construction schedule. The surveys may be phased to coincide with active construction areas plus a 0.5-mile buffer of those areas. If no active nests are observed during the surveys, no additional action is required. A copy of the survey report shall be submitted to the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
BIO-6 No mature trees that could be used by nesting Swainson’s hawk will be removed during construction of the Project. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest. The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed, and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest but depending upon conditions at the site this distance may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist. No avoidance would be needed if construction occurs near a known Swainson’s hawk nest outside of the Swainson’s hawk nesting season.
BIO-7 If Project construction activities will be initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15), a preconstruction activity nesting bird survey shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities. The surveys shall encompass the Project site and accessible land visible from accessible areas within a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500- foot buffer for raptors.
The surveys may be phased with the construction of the Project. If no active nests are found, no further action is required. However, existing nests may become active and new nests may be built at any time prior to and throughout the nesting season, including when construction activities are in progress.
Surveys for burrowing owl will follow CDFW protocol.
If active nests are found during the survey or at any time during construction of the Project, an avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet may be 38 required, with the avoidance buffer from any specific nest being determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place until the biologist has determined that the young are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest, or if breeding attempts have otherwise been unsuccessful. Work may occur within the avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop construction if nesting adults show any sign of distress. 39 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
The analysis in this section is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Memo7 and a Due Diligence Study8, prepared for the Project and are attached as Appendix D. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria:
1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built-environment resources and archaeological sites.
A records search covering an area within one-half mile of the Project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource 7 QK. 2025c. Cultural Resources Technical Memo, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502 8 ASM Affiliates. 2024. Due Diligence Study, McKinley/Temperance Property 40 reports on file was conducted. The records search indicated that the subject property has never been surveyed for cultural resources, and it is not known if any exist on it.
Five previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within half a mile of the Project. Two cultural resources, a historic residence (Primary no. P-10-005363) and a prehistoric lithic scatter (P-10-002189), have been recorded within one half mile of the Project. A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated January 13, 2025, indicates negative results.
An intensive Phase I survey of the Project Site was conducted on January 24, 2024, by qualified archaeologists. The entire parcel was surveyed at 15-meter intervals, including the northern five acres accommodating residential buildings after permission was granted. No cultural resources of any kind were identified as a result of the intensive pedestrian survey.
The house that was originally located on the site has been removed. No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the Project site. However, Project development could result in potential impacts to unknown resources that are located below the ground surface. Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL1 establishing procedures in the unlikely event unknown cultural resources are discovered would reduce potential impacts. If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction would stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist will be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. With implementation of CUL-1, impacts to to unknown historical resources will be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2). No archaeological resources were identified on the Project site. However, due to the nominal amount of prehistoric archaeological information within the majority of the City, including the Project site, there is potential to impact prehistoric archaeological resources during grading and construction activities within previously undisturbed soils. Adherence to Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires a cultural resource field survey and literature search prior to excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils would reduce potential Project impacts to unknown archeological resources to less than significant.
41 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. If human remains are identified during Project construction, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code shall apply, as appropriate. Although there is no record of isolated human remains or unknown cemeteries on the Project site, there is always a possibility that ground‐disturbing activities associated with future development may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Adherence to Mitigation Measure CUL-3 establishes procedures in the event that human remains are unearthed during construction activities would reduce potential Project impacts to unknown human remains to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
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.
CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.
42 If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to the above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
CUL-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur 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 43 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.
44 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
The analysis in this section is substantiated in part by an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix B).. The Air Quality Impact Analysis considered build out of a larger number of residential lots than is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the energy consumption estimates resulting from the Project would be less than those discussed in this IS/MND
DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed Project would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices as required in the California Building Code, Part 11, Title 24 (California Green Building Standards Code), and the proposed Project would also use new modern, energy-efficient appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Development of the Project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings. It can be assumed that implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional energy demand in the City; however, since the proposed Project would be located in a developed urban area, is planned for residential development under the Fresno General Plan, and would be required to comply with the City’s energy efficiency policies, including General Plan Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k. Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k 45 provide implementing policies for the goal of reducing the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources by requiring and encouraging conservation measures and the use of alternative energy sources. These policies include the use of incentives for energy conservation, establishing electricity reduction per capita, and energy efficiency education.
The Project would comply with the SJVAPCD requirements regarding the limitation of vehicle idling, and the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, to the extent feasible. Energy-saving strategies will be implemented where possible to further reduce the Project’s energy consumption, during the construction phase. Strategies being implemented include those recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that may reduce both the Project’s energy consumption, including diesel anti-idling measures, light-duty vehicle technology, usage of alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends and ethanol, and heavy-duty vehicle design measures to reduce energy consumption. While construction of the proposed Project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified by the energy-efficient nature of the proposed Project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Electricity and gas service for the proposed Project would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Electricity consumption in Fresno County in 2022 was 8,384.41 millions of kilowatts per hour (GWh) and natural gas consumption attributable to Fresno County in 2022 was 319.44 million therms (mBTU)9 10. Energy estimates are summarized in Table 6-1 below.
Table 6-1
Estimated Energy Use
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)
Single-family Housing 4,747,303 1,140,283
Fresno County Total 314,440,000 8,384,410,000
Source: Appendix B
Based on these estimates, the Project would result be approximately 1.5 percent of natural gas use and an approximately 0.01% of electricity use based on California Energy Commission historical data. The proposed Project will be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code (24 CCR Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (24 CCR Part 11). Adherence to Title 24 requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful or 9 California Energy Commission. 2022. Gas Consumption by County. Available online at:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
10 California Energy Commission. 2022. Electricity Consumption by County. Available online at:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
46 inefficient use of nonrenewable resources due to operation.
Because construction-related energy use would be temporary and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the Project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to be energy efficient for residential projects. The Project’s construction and operation would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction activities in the city. Federal and State regulations in place require the use of fuelefficient equipment and vehicles and that wasteful activities, such as diesel idling, to be limited. Further, construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would not be expected to engage in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices, such as diesel idling.
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which includes provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption. The expected energy consumption during operation of the proposed Project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses. It can be assumed that implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional energy demand in the city; however, as noted above, the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable California Green Building Standards Code and California Energy Code requirements to encourage energy efficient design. Therefore, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would be compliant with relevant energy-efficient policies and applicable building code standards as outlined in the City’s General Plan and development standards, as well as those under the California Green Building Standards Code and California Energy Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct state and local plans for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
47 48
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
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
49 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
The analysis in this section is substantiated in part by a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment11 prepared for the Project (Appendix E).
DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., in the last 11,000 years).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the Project vicinity. The nearest active faults are the Nunez Fault, located approximately 57 miles from the Project site, and Round Valley Fault, located approximately 65 miles from the Project site12. As a result, potential Project impacts related to fault ruptures would be less than significant. 11 Krazan and Associates, Inc. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, McKinley Ranch Property 12 California Department of Conservation. 2024. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca/gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp (accessed December 2024) 50 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The City is located in an area with historically low to moderate level of seismicity.
However, strong ground shaking could occur within the Project site during seismic events and occurrences have the possibility to result in significant impacts. Major seismic activity along the nearby Great Valley Fault Zone or the Nunez Fault, or other associated faults, could affect the Project site through strong seismic ground shaking. Strong seismic ground shaking could potentially cause structural damage to the proposed Project. However, due to the distance to the known faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) would ensure that the geotechnical design of the proposed Project would reduce potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The predominant soils within the City consist of varying combinations of loose/very soft to very dense/hard silts, clays, sands, and gravels. Groundwater has been encountered near the ground surface in close proximity to water‐filled features such as canals, ditches, ponds, and lakes. Based on these characteristics, the potential for soil liquefaction within the City ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater. In addition to liquefaction, the City could be susceptible to induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soil or lateral spread during seismic shaking events. Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, seismic settlement and/or lateral spread are not anticipated to represent a substantial hazard within the City during seismic events.
The approximate depth to groundwater is determined to be approximately 85 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) (Appendix E).
Based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, potential for seismic related ground failure is low in Fresno.
Additionally, as noted above, the water table is greater than 50 ft bgs, which reduces the possibility of liquefaction. Compliance with the Fresno Municipal Code and the California Building Code, as well as General Plan Policies NS-2-a through NS-2-d would ensure that potential Project impacts associated with seismicrelated ground failure including liquefaction would be less than significant.
Specifically, Policy NS-2-a requires seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code, Policy NS-2-b requires soil analysis within areas identified as having potential geologic and/or soil hazards, Policy NS-2-c required land uses on or near landfill areas to be designed and maintained to comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 21190, Post Closure Land Use, and Policy NS-2-d requiring the establishment and further soil investigation of projects within the Bluff Preservation 51 Overlay Zone. As these policies were adopted to minimize risk of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismics risks, compliance of the Project with the policies would result in a less than significant impact. iv. Landslides?
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials. The City of Fresno is located within an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley. Accordingly, there is no risk of large landslides in the majority of the City. However, there is the potential for landslides and slumping along the steep banks of rivers, creeks, or drainage basins such as the San Joaquin River bluff and the many unlined basins and canals that trend throughout the City. The Project site is located in a relatively flat area, and it is not in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River bluff or any unlined basins or canals. Therefore, the potential for the proposed Project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Grading and earthmoving during Project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be mixed in stormwater runoff and transported off the Project site.
In compliance with the General Plan, any development project disturbing one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009‐ 0009‐DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and other ground‐disturbing activities such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
A SWPPP includes features designed to eliminate contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with sources of pollution that occur on construction sites, the main source being soil erosion resulting from unstabilized soils coming in contact with water and wind.
These features are known as Best Management Practices (BMPs). Common BMPs to limit pollution in stormwater runoff from construction sites include maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. As required under Policy NS-3-e of the General Plan, to prevent and reduce existence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act (NPDES), compliance with requirements under NPDES Construction General Permit, including the approval of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs, would reduce Project construction impacts on water quality, and the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. 52 Once constructed and operational, the Project is unlikely to have large areas of exposed topsoil. The majority of the site would be completely developed with residences and associated infrastructure such as driveways, landscaping and roadways. Project impact related to soil erosion during long term operations would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? As described in discussion a) in this section, soils on the Project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to conform with the California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to unstable soils. 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?
The surface and near‐surface soils observed throughout the City consist of varying combinations of clays, silts, sands, gravels, and cobbles. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. The clayey soils, which consist of very fine particles, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. The Project site contains Atwater loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, Atwater sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 3 percent slopes, and Delhi sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, all soils with relatively low clay content and low expansion potential13. Furthermore, compliance with recommendations from the California Building Code, Chapter 18 for development on certain soils would reduce potential Project impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The Project site does not propose the installation of septic systems. The Project would be served by a wastewater conveyance system maintained by the City’s Wastewater Management Division (WMD). Wastewater from the City’s collection system is treated at the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Development of the proposed Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater 13 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2024. Web Soil Survey. Available online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed January 2025) 53 disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
A paleontological study completed for similar residential project less than a mile to the west of the subject Project site was conducted to determine if any document fossil collection localities occur within the Project site or within the immediate surrounding areas14. Published geological reports covering the Project area indicate that the proposed Project has the potential to impact recent alluvial fan deposits in the Great Valley (correlated with the late Pleistocene-age Modesto Formation).The Modesto Formation consists of relatively recent sediments of late Pleistocene age (approximately 120,000 to 11,700 years old) derived from erosion of the Sierra Nevada mountains to the northeast and deposited by streams flowing downhill into the southern San Joaquin basin. Based on the known fossil productivity of the Modesto Formation in this region, it is assigned a high paleontological resource potential. The high paleontological potential of the Modesto Formation suggests that construction of the proposed Project may result in impacts to paleontological resources. Any proposed excavation activities that extend deep enough to encounter previously undisturbed deposits of this geologic unit (i.e., grading, borehole augering, trenching, or other miscellaneous excavations that extend below the depth any previously imported artificial fill, topsoil, or disturbed sediments present within the Project site) have the potential to impact the paleontological resources preserved therein.
Development on the Project site could potentially impact unknown paleontological resources or unique geological features. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO1 would ensure that a field survey and record search are conducted prior to construction and that paleontological/geological resources found during the field survey or during Project construction would be handled and preserved by a qualified paleontologist. Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological and geological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: A field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted prior to the issuance of grading permits. The following procedures shall be followed:
• If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field 14 San Diego Natural History Museum. 2025. Paleontological Records Search – Tentative Tract Map 6475 Project 54 survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make 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. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. A report outlining the results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of grading permits. If no paleontological resources are identified, no further action is warranted. • If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
55 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
The analysis in this section is substantiated in part by an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix B). The Air Quality Impact Analysis evaluated the build out of a larger number of residential lots than is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the greenhouse gases emission estimates resulting from the Project would be less than those discussed in this IS/MND.
DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
In 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to projects within the San Joaquin Valley:
• Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009), and
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009) This guidance and policy are the documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March 201515. Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD acknowledges the 15 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.
Available online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI%20Jan%202002%20Rev.pdf (accessed February 2025)
56 current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions;
ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and
iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual (BAU).
The Project’s estimated annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 8-1 below.
Table 8-1
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total Construction Emissions 874.74 0.03 0.02 880.74
Annualized Construction
Emissions
1 29.16 0.00 0.00 29.36
Total Operational Emissions 1,689 1.67 0.07 1,755
Total Project Emissions
In the decade after SJVAPCD adopted their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, several new lawslaws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020.
For instance, Senate Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions be 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100, which was signed by the Governor recently, requires 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55-18, which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2009 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards, which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted, and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, the objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy, and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project level.
For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-6 are primarily for disclosure purposes. The City has recommended use of the BAAQMD’s GHG significance threshold for determining GHG impacts from residential projects. Chapter 3 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines indicates that a land use project will have less than 57 significant impact related to operational GHG emissions if it includes the following project design elements:
• Buildings
o The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. o The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis under CEQA Section 2110021100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Transportation
o The project will 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 or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendation provided in the Governor’s Office Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.. ▪ The VMT threshold target in the City of Fresno is 13% of the average County VMT per capita which results in less than 14.01 VMT o The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
The development of the Project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing per Project representatives. In addition, the proposed Project will use energyefficient materials, modern construction practices, and new appliances, following Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations {CCR} Sections 1601-1608). Energy Consumption during construction and operation will align with typical residential usage but will vary based on personal choices and building design.
The Project, located in an urban area and residential land use under the Fresno General Plan, will comply with the City’s energy efficiency policies (General Plan Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k), ensuring it does not result in wasteful or inefficient energy consumption.
The Project is also subject to CCR, Title 24 building standards which would improve the Project’s energy efficiency and consumption. The Title 24 California Building Standards Code is a wide-ranging set of requirements for energy conservation and green design that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building.
The Fresno City Council adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) on June 25, 2020, which establishes the City’s threshold of significance for CEQA transportation studies as it relates to VMT. In addition, Fresno COG’s Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Technical Report also establishes a threshold of significance for CEQA transportation studies as it relates to VMT. Both documents indicate that projects that generate a low volume of daily traffic are presumed to create a less than significant impact on VMT and GHG emissions. As noted above, the VMT threshold target in the City is 13% of the average County VMT per capita, which results in less than 14.01 VMT.
Using Project specific data, the City’s VMT Urban Calculator estimated the VMT per capita for the Project at 14.70 VMT, which exceeds the current threshold by 0.70 VMT 58 per capita. Therefore, further mitigation was needed in order to reduce VMT below the significance thresholds. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) was prepared for the Project (JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc, 2025). The following are mitigation measures applied by the traffic engineers to further reduce the VMT:
• Increase Destination Accessibility
• Provide Traffic Calming Measures
In order to apply the VMT mitigation measure of “Provide Traffic Calming Measures” it is recommended that the Project include traffic calming measures at the intersections of Hornet Avenue at Peralta Way, Hornet Avenue at University Avenue and Hornet Avenue at Normal Avenue. At this time residential traffic circles are suggested as the traffic calming measure to meet the VMT reduction criteria. These measures would reduce the Project’s VMT by an additional 1.21. The recommendation is currently under review by the City of Fresno. Once approved the Project’s VMT per capita would be 13.49, which is less than the City’s significance threshold of 14.01 VMT per capita. If the current recommended strategy is not approved by the City, the Project proponent will continue to work with the City staff to determine an acceptable calming measure or pay required regulatory mitigation fees in order to reduce VMT impacts to a less than significant level.
Project design elements also include ‘ready to charge’ capabilities for each residential unit, to be compliant with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted 2022 CALGreen TIER 2 Residential Measures (A4.106.8). Therefore, based on the information outlined above, the Project is considered less than significant for GHG impacts.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its initial Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations.
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the efforts and plans encompassed in the initial Scoping Plan. The current plan has identified new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s 2030 GHG limit. Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies. • California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs for long-term climate change goals.
59 o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty vehicles that would access the Project.
The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure. • Energy Efficiency – Pursuit of comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards.
o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. Though this measure applies to the State to increase its energy standards, the Project would comply with this measure through existing regulation. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure. • Low Carbon Fuel – Development and adoption of the low carbon fuel standard. o The Project is consistent with this reduction measure. This measure cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since it is a statewide measure. When this measure is implemented, standards would be applicable to the fuel used by vehicles that would access the Project. The Project would not conflict or obstruct this reduction measure.
SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or auxiliary power systems (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, has provided each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. For the Fresno COG region, CARB set targets at six (6) percent per capita decrease in 2020 and a thirteen (13) percent per capita decrease in 2035 from a base year of 2005.
Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS, which was adopted in July 2022, projects that the Fresno County region would achieve the prescribed emissions targets.
Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 requires MPOs to implement measures that will achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.
If a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. The BAAQMD adopted new Project Level Climate Impact Thresholds of Significance On April 20, 2022, which rely upon necessary design elements to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of 60 carbon neutrality by 2045. The Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases since it will meet the project specific design elements identified in Part A of the BAAQMD Project Level Climate Impact Thresholds of Significance. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
61 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
62 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
DISCUSSION
The analysis in this section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA)16 completed for the Project and found in Appendix E. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction and operation would comply with applicable safety standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies NS-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS-4-f
17 . No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses
utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the Project site.
During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated. This debris would be disposed of in local landfills. In addition, sanitary waste would be managed during construction through the use of portable toilets, which would be located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.
16 Krazan, 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for McKinley Ranch Property 17 City of Fresno. 2014. City of Fresno General Plan. Available online at: https://www.fresno.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2023/03/upload_temp_Consolidated-GP-10-13-2022_compressed.pdf (accessed January 2025)
63 Hazardous and non-hazardous waste would likely be transported to and from the Project site during the future construction phase of the proposed Project. Construction would most likely involve the use of some standard hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, grease, solvents, adhesives, paints, and other petroleumbased products, although these materials are commonly used during construction activities and would not be disposed of on the Project site. Workers would likely be trained to properly identify and handle all hazardous materials, following OSHA/CALOSHA regulations. Hazardous waste would be either recycled or disposed of at a permitted and licensed treatment and/or disposal facility. Any hazardous waste or debris that is generated during construction of future buildout as a result of the Project would be collected and transported away from the site and disposed of at an approved off-site landfill or other such facility. In addition, sanitary waste generated during construction would be managed through the use of portable toilets, which would be located at reasonably accessible on-site locations. Hazardous materials such as paint, bleach, water treatment chemicals, gasoline, oil, etc., may be used during construction. These materials would be required to be stored in appropriate storage locations and containers in the manner specified by the manufacturer and disposed of in accordance with local, federal, and State regulations. no significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during construction or operation of the new residential development would occur.
The use of hazardous materials would be limited in quantities and duration, and if spilled, would be localized. With the implementation of a SWPPP as discussed previously, the Project would include emergency procedures for incidental hazardous material release, and the appropriate cleanup procedures would be in place for immediate cleanup, thereby keeping spills localized. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials and substances. The transport use and storage of hazardous materials would be required to comply with all applicable State and federal regulations, such as requirements that spills would be cleaned immediately, and all wastes and spills control materials would be properly disposed of at approved disposal facilities.
It is noted that residential construction generally uses fewer hazardous chemicals or use chemicals in relatively small quantities and concentrations as compared to commercial or industrial uses. In addition, once any future development is completed, the chemicals used would include minor quantities of pesticides/ rodenticides, fertilizers, paints, detergents, and other cleaners.
Once constructed, the use of such materials such as paint, bleach, etc., are considered common for residential developments and would be unlikely for such materials to be stored or used in such quantities that would be considered a significant hazard. Furthermore, residential hazardous waste, otherwise known as household 64 hazardous waste (HHW), would be dropped off by residents at a HHW facility located in the City or at a one-day HHW event hosted by the County18. Therefore, development of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See discussion a) above.
No evidence of a recognized environmental condition (REC), or controlled REC (CREC) in connection with the subject site was found (Appendix E). Historical review of the subject site found one historical REC (HREC) pertaining to a 500-gallon gasoline UST that was removed from the subject site. The UST was removed under the oversight of the Fresno County Department of Community Health, Environmental Health System (FCEHS) in April 2006. FCEHS issued a UST Closure Letter regarding the removal of the UST on February 28, 2017, indicating that no evidence of the former UST representing an environmental concern exists (Appendix E). As the time of the Phase I ESA, the presence of water wells and a septic system associated with the existing residential dwelling and historical agricultural use for the property was also noted. The existing dwelling has since been removed. The on-site water wells and septic system are not be used in future development of the property, therefore the wells and septic system should be properly abandoned in accordance with State and local guidelines.
The proposed Project would not result in 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. General Plan Objective NS‐ 4 and Policies NS-4-a (safe processing and storage of hazardous materials), NS‐4‐c (soil and groundwater contamination reports), NS-4-e (compliance with county programs for hazardous materials), NS-4-f (hazardous material facility management in accordance with laws and regulations) and NS‐4‐g (appropriate hazardous materials response preparedness) require site and Project-specific compliance with local, State and federal standards and procedures to avoid the release or upset of hazardous materials.
As noted in Section VII GEOLOGY AND SOILS, part (b), the Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP under the NPDES permit for construction sites 18 County of Fresno. 2024. Household Hazardous Waste. Available online at:
https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/Departments/Public-Works-and-Planning/divisions-of-public-works-andplanning/resources-and-parks-division/recycling-and-solid-waste-disposal/household-haz (accessed October 2024)
65 over one acre. The SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution from the Project that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and requires that BMPs be implemented to prevent contamination at the source. By implementing BMPs, accidental spills of hazardous materials would be contained, and soil and groundwater contamination would be minimized or prevented.
Review of the State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Online Mapping System indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil/gas wells are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, construction impacts related to upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials would be less than significant.
As previously noted, the amount of HHW generated during operation of the Project would be minimal. According to Chapter 15, Part II of the Fresno Municipal Code, no industrial uses are permitted by right in the proposed zone districts. As such, the Project would not 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 and Project impacts would be less than significant.
Compliance with federal, State, and applicable General Plan policies would ensure that the Project would not result in significant hazards to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The closest existing school to the Project site is Boris Elementary School, located approximately 600 feet northwest of the Project site. As previously stated, the proposed Project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
As noted above in Response (a), residential construction activities typically include minimal amounts of hazardous materials such as lubricants and diesel fuel during construction. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would comply with applicable safety standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies NS-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS-4-f.
As noted in Section VII GEOLOGY AND SOILS, (b), the Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP under the NPDES permit for construction sites over 66 one acre. The SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution from the Project that may affect the quality of stormwater discharge and requires that BMPs be implemented to prevent contamination at the source. By implementing BMPs during construction activities, accidental spills of hazardous materials would be contained, and soil and groundwater contamination would be minimized or prevented. Included in these BMPs are spill prevention and control measures for hazardous materials.
Exhaust from construction and related activities are expected to be minimal and not significant.
Therefore, the proposed Project does not involve activities that would result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances to an existing or proposed school. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact in the use or emission of hazardous materials that would adversely affect a school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? According to the DTSC EnviroStor database, the Project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site.
The Project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.519. The property located south of the Project site (APN 310-062-09), across McKinley Avenue, was a federal superfund site. but has been removed from the National Priorities List of Superfund hazardous waste sites after appropriate remediation actions were completed. The proposed Project’s potable water demand would be served by the City’s Department of Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities – Water Division is responsible for the delivery of safe, clean, reliable water to City of Fresno water customers. Every month, Water Division staff routinely collect water samples throughout the entire water system and reports the results to the State. As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated, and impacts would be less 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?
19 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. Envirostor. Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno (accessed January 2025) 67 The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 2.28 miles west of the Project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 8.89 miles southwest of the Project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 12.42 miles northwest of the Project site. The nearest medical center helipads (HP) to the Project site include Clovis Community Hospital, located approximately 4.83 miles north of the Project site, Community Regional Medical Center, located approximately 7.12 miles west of the Project site, and Saint Agnes Medical Center, located approximately 7.48 miles northwest of the Project site20.
Due to the distance between the Project site and local airports and helipads, operations at these locations are not expected to pose a safety hazard for people within the Project site. The Project is not located within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people to airport-related hazards, and therefore, no impact would occur .
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The City's full‐time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up‐to‐date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOC. The proposed Project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways that would block the circulation of emergency response services or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the EOC. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with emergency evacuation plans in the City, and this impact would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are recognized by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as areas where CAL FIRE is the primary emergency response agency 20 California Department of Transportation. 2024. Caltrans Heliplates. Available online at:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov/# (accessed January 2025) 68 responsible for fire suppression and prevention. According to available data, the Project is not in a designated State Responsibility Area (SRA).
The Project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ)21. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
21 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.
Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed December 2024) 69 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
X
i) Result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:
X
iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
70 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
The analysis in this section is substantiated in part by Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project and is attached as Appendix F
22 . The WSA evaluated the build
out of a larger number of residential lots than is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the water consumption estimates resulting from the Project would be less than those discussed in the study.
DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed Project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During Project construction, there would be an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies, including Mill Ditch, located immediately to the north of the Project site.
However, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with water quality control measures, which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as noted in Section VII Geology and Soils (b). A SWPPP is designed primarily to protect stormwater quality and would incorporate BMPs to minimize erosion and soil loss that could migrate into this feature. 22 QK. 2025. Water Supply Assessment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6502, Blossom View 71 Long-term operation impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the City’s Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP), which manages the City’s stormwater drainage systems, and the City’s participation in the Phase 1 NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Phase 1 MS4), which requires the City to implement water quality and watershed protection measures for all development Projects.
Therefore, the impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed Project would be provided by the City through the Department of Public Utilities. The City receives its water supply from both groundwater and surface water sources. The City has indicated that groundwater wells, pump stations, recharge facilities, water treatment and distribution systems shall be expanded incrementally to mitigate increased water demands. One of the primary objectives of Fresno’s future water supply plans detailed in Fresno’s current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)is to balance groundwater operations through a host of strategies23. Through careful planning, Fresno has designed a comprehensive plan to accomplish this objective by increasing surface water supplies and surface water treatment facilities, intentional recharge, and conservation, thereby reducing groundwater pumping. The City continually monitors impacts of land use changes and development Project proposals on water supply facilities by assigning fixed demand allocations to each parcel by land use as currently zoned or proposed to be rezoned.
Per the UWMP, the City has an estimated service population of approximately 550,217 people, and in 2020, an approximate delivery of 121,993 acre-feet (39,752 million gallons) of water to an estimated 140,150 water service connections of which approximately 91% of the water use is for residential services. The remainder are for commercial and industrial uses. The City utilizes local groundwater and surface water as its source of water supply. Groundwater is extracted by 270 wells located within the City’s SOI, in addition to three surface water treatment facilities.
Construction water demands are estimated to be approximately 225 gpd/acre for the duration of construction or 6.05 acre-feet, which is equivalent to approximately 1,971,000 gallons. Initial construction water usage will be in support of site preparation 23 City of Fresno. 2021. City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available online at:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/07/Fresno-2020- UWMP_Final_2021-07-21.pdf (accessed December 2024)
72 and grading activities. During earthwork for grading of access road foundations, building foundations and Project components, the principal use of water would be for compaction and dust control. Smaller quantities would be required for the preparation of the concrete required for foundations and other minor uses. After the earthwork activities, water usage will be used for dust suppression and normal construction water requirements that are associated with construction of the buildings, internal access roads, and revegetation.
The long-term average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately 30.86 million gallons per year or 94.74 acrefeet per year at total buildout of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 693 gallons per day (based on the 198-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 City of Fresno UWMP and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 119 units for the Project.
In 2020, Fresno updated its Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan (incorporated by reference), to ensure the Fresno metro area has a reliable water supply through 2045. The plan implements a conjunctive use program, combining groundwater, treated surface water, artificial recharge and an enhanced water conservation program. The City goals are to achieve a ‘water balance’ between supply and demand while decreasing reliance upon and use of groundwater. To achieve these goals the city is implementing strategies including:
• Intentional groundwater recharge through reclamation at the City’s groundwater recharge facility at Leaky Acres (located northwest of FresnoYosemite international Airport), refurbish existing streams and canals to increase percolation, and recharge at Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) storm water basins;
• Increase use of existing surface water entitlements from the Kings River, United States Bureau of Reclamation and Fresno Irrigation District for treatment at the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) and construct a new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF); and • Recycle wastewater at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment and re-use for irrigation, and to percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. Further actions include the General Plan, Policy RC6-d to prepare, adopt and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.
In the near future, groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily as has historically been the case. The City is planning to rely on expanding their delivery and treatment of surface water supplies and groundwater recharge activities.
73 Project construction would add additional impervious surfaces to the Project site; however, various areas of the Project site would remain largely pervious, which would allow infiltration to underlying groundwater. For example, the Project includes ample landscaping areas and outdoor recreation space that would remain pervious and the annexation only area would also remain pervious as no development is proposed on this area. The Project would include up to 2.24 acres of landscaping, park, and aa trail where all portions of these areas would remain pervious. The areas would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge following the construction of the Project.
Furthermore, the Project is not anticipated to significantly affect groundwater quality because sufficient stormwater infrastructure, including City compliant stormwater drain pipelines, would be constructed as part of the Project to detain and filter stormwater runoff and prevent long-term water quality degradation. Therefore, Project construction and operation would not substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supply or quality
The proposed Project would also be consistent with water management strategies from both the Urban Water Management Plan and the Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan. Furthermore, the Project applicant would be required to comply with water management requirements and recommendations of the Department of Public Utilities, which would reduce the Project impacts to groundwater recharge to less than significant. When development permits are issued, the Project site would be required to pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance. The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control for the City, City of Clovis, and the unincorporated areas within the City’s sphere of influence are provided by the FMFCD.
The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the following: topography, the amount and intensity of precipitation, the amount of evaporation that occurs in the watershed and the amount of precipitation and water that infiltrates to the groundwater. The proposed Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, which would have the potential to result in erosion, 74 siltation, or flooding on or offsite, and a temporary retention basin will be located on the Project site. The disturbance of soils onsite during construction could cause erosion, resulting in temporary construction impacts. In addition, the placement of permanent structures onsite could affect drainage in the long-term. Impacts from construction and operation are discussed below.
The Project site is generally flat and is adjacent to an open irrigation canal, Mill Ditch. As noted in Geology and Soils Impact (b), construction of the proposed Project would result in grading on the site that would expose native soils that could be subject to the effects associated with wind and water erosion unless adequate measures are taken to limit the transport of soils in surface water from the site to downstream locations.
As required by the General Plan, a SWPPP would be developed prior to any ground disturbance at the Project site and would include BMPs to reduce erosion and surface water contamination during construction of the proposed Project.
Additionally, compliance with the City’s grading plan check process, FMFCD Storm Drainage and SDFCMP, and stipulations of the NPDES Construction General Permit would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and saltation on- and off-site would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Ground‐disturbing activities related to Project construction, such as grading, excavation, placing fill, and trenching, could change existing surface drainage patterns and increase the potential for flooding, particularly during storm events.
Regulatory mechanisms in place that would reduce the effects of construction activities on drainage patterns that would result in flooding on or off the construction site include compliance with the City’s grading plan check process, the SDFCMP, and the NPDES Construction General Permit. Development of the Project would include approximately 2.24 acres of landscaping, dedicated park and trail space, as well as lawns, which will allow stormwater to percolate back into the ground system in addition to the construction of City compliant storm drain lines that would direct stormwater into the City’s existing stormwater drain system to reduce the rate of surface runoff and avoid flooding on- or off-site. Compliance with these required regulations would reduce Project construction impacts on grading patterns and flooding on and off of the construction site to less-than-significant levels.
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?
75 Please refer to discussions a) and c) i and ii in this section. The proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces at the Project site. However, with implementation of a SWPPP, which would require execution of BMPs for controlling pollution sources during Project construction, compliance with the City’s SDFCMP, and implementation of the NPDES Permit, the proposed Project would not exceed capacity of stormwater drainage systems or generate additional sources of polluted runoff. The nearest FMFCD drainage basin is located immediately east of the residential subdivision24. As noted, the Project would develop suitable storm water drainage infrastructure in compliance with City development standards. Additionally, the Project applicant would pay the City a Drainage Fee to address impacts related to increased amount of surface runoff resulting from the proposed Project. The impact would be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Please see responses (c(i)-c(iii)), above. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 regulations (40CFR60), and the floodplain ordinance of the City of Fresno require that placement and flood provision structures within a floodplain not result in a cumulative change in the floodplain water surface that exceeds one foot. In addition, the regulations under 40CFR60 do not allow placement of structures within a regulatory floodway unless that placement would not result in any increase in the floodplain water surface elevation, meaning that there is no displacement or redirection of the floodway. The City’s floodplain ordinance requires that a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California certify that no displacement of floodwater would result from the flood proofing of a structure within a floodplain or a regulatory floodway.
The proposed Project is not located within the 100-year flood hazard (1% annual chance flood hazard) area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but a portion of the site is within the 500-year flood hazard (0.2% chance flood hazard) zone25. Compliance with the City’s floodplain ordinance would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The annexation only area is within a 100-year flood hazard area. However, as previously noted, this area is owned and maintained by FMFCD, the local agency that manages flood control and stormwater drainage to protect the Fresno/Clovis metropolitan area from flooding hazards. No development is proposed in this area and site control would remain with FMFCD. As a result, the impact would be less than significant.
24 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. 2009. 2016 District Services Plan 25 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2024. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available online at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed January 2025) 76 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Project site is not located near the ocean or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.). The proposed Project’s inland location makes the risk of tsunami highly unlikely. The probability of a seiche occurring in the City of Fresno is considered negligible. Furthermore, given the geologic context at the proposed Project site and the absence of pollutants, if such an event were to occur, the likelihood of it exposing Project structures or people to a significant risk is considered low. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to substantiate that the Project is above freeboard. Refer to discussion a) in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials regarding the use of hazardous materials within the Project site.
The closest dams are the Friant Dam, approximately 16 miles north, and the Pine Flat dam, approximately 29 miles east of the Project. In the case of dam failure, flood waters would not reach the City for hours. The extremely low probability of dam failure, large volume of flood water available for dilution of potential pollutants, and the relatively long warning period to prepare, indicate that inundation due to dam failure would not have a significant impact on the Project.
Therefore, the Project would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, and impacts are considered to be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The City is located within the Kings Sub-basin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The planning documents regarding water resources for the City include the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Act (GSA) Groundwater Management Plan, the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan.
Per the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) the City has an estimated service population of approximately 550,217 people, and an approximate delivery of 121,993 acre-feet (39,752 million gallons) of water to an estimated 140,150 water service connections of which approximately 91% of the water use is for residential services. The remainder are for commercial and industrial uses. The City utilizes local groundwater and surface water as its source of water supply.
Groundwater is extracted by 270 wells located within the City’s SOI, in addition to three surface water treatment facilities.
A WSA was prepared for the Project (Appendix F) to estimate the anticipated amount of water necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed Project and determine if there is sufficient water supply available to service the Project based on 77 available data provided in the 2020 UWMP. The long-term average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately
30.10 million gallons per year or 92.37 acre-feet per year at total buildout of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 693 gallons per day (based on the 198-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 UWMP and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 119 units for the Project.
Table 10-1 presents the normal year supply and demand and differences. Table 10- 2 represents the single dry year supply and demand, and Table 10-3 indicates the five consecutive dry year supply and demand comparison. These tables appear within the 2020 UWMP.
Table 10-1: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water
– USBR
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Surface Water
– FID
125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand
Totals
199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 129,826 128,384 124,300 120,124 115,883
Source: Appendix F
Table 10-2: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water
– USBR
0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water
– FID
45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
78 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
27,588 28,776 29,964 31,152 32,340
Demand
Totals
164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287
Difference 25,760 19,260 16,688 14,024 11,295
Source: Appendix F
Table 10-3: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Surface
Water –
USBR
30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Surface
Water – FID
99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply
Totals
273,725 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand
Totals
199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008
Second
Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface
Water –
USBR
37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200
Surface
Water – FID
93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply
Totals
274,626 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand
Totals
199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909
79 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Third Year Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Surface
Water –
USBR
00000
Surface
Water – FID
73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply
Totals
217,568 223,108 228,578 233,968 239,298
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
53,763 46,281 43,526 40,677 37,761
Demand
Totals
190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708
Difference 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Fourth
Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface
Water –
USBR
00000
Surface
Water – FID
45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply
Totals
189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
Recharge)
Deman
26,047 18,564 15,810 12,960 10,045
Demand
Totals
162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992
Difference 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Fifth Year Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Surface
Water –
USBR
45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
Surface
Water – FID
125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840
Recycled
Water
5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply
Totals
314,840 320,380 325,850 331,240 336,570
Potable
Demand
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
(Groundwater
62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
80 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Recharge)
Deman
Demand
Totals
199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123
Source: Appendix F
As represented in the tables above, the Department of Public Utilities would have adequate water supply to meet all demands through the year 2045 even under the multiple dry-year drought condition scenario. Based on the 2020 UWMP, the water supplies for the City (357,330 Acre Feet (AF)/year) are adequate to accommodate the demand in the City by 2045 (i.e., 241,447 AF/year). The proposed Project buildout would result in approximately 92.37AF/year of water demand which is 0.038% of the available water supply of the City in the worst-case scenario of the fifth year of the five consecutive dry year supply and demand comparison (Table 10-3). The Project is within the City SOI and would pre-zone the Project site to match the planned land use designations identified in the Fresno General Plan upon annexation of the site. As such, the proposed Project would be included within the growth estimates that the 2020 UWMP accounted for.
Implementation of the Fresno General Plan policies, the Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City’s Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan will address the issues of providing an adequate, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the Project’s urban domestic and public safety consumptive purposes. The City’s Water Division has reviewed the Project for compliance with water quality and groundwater management.
The Project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements.
As a result, the Project would not conflict with any applicable water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
81 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.
The Project site is within an area planned for residential development, and which is currently being urbanized by new development throughout the area. On- and off-site improvements including circulation roads, interior local streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping will be constructed. The proposed single-family residential subdivision is allowed within this land use designation. The subject parcel is undeveloped; therefore it is not dividing an established community. Project improvements include the construction of a portion of East McKinley Avenue which would increase connectivity. Development of the Project would not divide an established community. Therefore, there are no impacts. 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?
82 Development of the proposed single-family residential subdivision is consistent with the site’s planned land use designation of Residential Medium Low Density in the General Plan. This land use designation is intended for areas with predominantly single-family residential development, but can also accommodate a mix of housing types, including small-lot starter homes, zero-lot-line developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Many of the City’s established neighborhoods fall within this designation.
The Project site is located in a RS-4 zoning district, which is intended to provide for a variety of single-family residences built to urban or suburban standards to suit a spectrum of individual lifestyles and needs, and to ensure availability throughout the city of the range of housing types necessary for all segments of the community, consistent with the General Plan.
The Project would not require a change to the General Plan land use designation. The proposed pre-zoning of both the Project site and annexation only area would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The discretionary approvals required for the Project will include reviews and comments from responsible agencies, and from several City departments to ensure compliance with all applicable plans, policies, regulations, standards, and conditions of approval. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
83 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas.
The principal area for mineral resources in the City of Fresno is located along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies lands along the San Joaquin River Corridor as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 1, MRZ2, and MRZ-3. The Project site is not located in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River, is not an MRZ, and it doesn’t contain an MRZ. The City’s General Plan includes Objective RC-10 and Policies RC-10-a through RC-10-f to conserve aggregate mineral resources, which would be applied by the proposed Project, as applicable (City of Fresno 2014).
According to CalGEM, there are no active, inactive, or capped oil or gas wells located within the Project site, and it is not within a recognized oilfield. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State. Therefore, there would be no impact. 84 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
85 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
The analysis presented in this section is based on an Acoustical Analysis26, prepared for the Project attached as Appendix G.
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
The General Plan Noise Element provides noise level criteria for land use compatibility for both transportation and non‐transportation noise sources. The General Plan sets 26 WVJ Acoustics. 2024. Acoustical Analysis, Blossom View Residential Development 86 noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐ Night Average Level (Ldn). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10-dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. Table 13-1 below provides the General Plan noise level standards for transportation noise sources.
Table 13-1: City of Fresno General Plan Noise Level Standards Noise‐Sensitive Land
Use
Outdoor Activity Areas Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB
Residential 65 45 ‐‐‐
Transient Lodging 65 45 ‐‐‐
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 ‐‐‐
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 ‐‐‐ 45
Office Buildings ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 45
Where the location of the outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. As determined for a typical worst‐case hour during periods of use. Source: Appendix G
Additionally, Implementing Policy NS‐1‐h of the General Plan Noise Element requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior transportation noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn (City of Fresno 2014). The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.
Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase (e.g., demolition, land clearing, grading, excavation, erection) of construction. Noise produced by construction equipment such as earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators can reach high levels. Generally, the grading phase of construction involves the most equipment and generates the highest noise levels, although noise ranges are usually similar across all construction phases.
Typical noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment generally range from approximately 77 dBA to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Depending on the equipment required and duration of use, average‐hourly noise levels associated with construction activity typically range from roughly 65 to 90 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, 87 and senior housing. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project include the existing residential subdivisions to the north (200 feet) and immediately to the west of the Project site.
Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. Section 10-109 states that construction noise is exempted from City noise regulations provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.
Thus, although development activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, construction activity would be exempt from City of Fresno noise regulations, as long as such activity is conducted pursuant to an applicable construction permit and occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., excluding Sunday.
Therefore, short‐term construction impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.
Operational Noise Impacts. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the Project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the Project site vicinity.
The Project site is located north of (and adjacent to) E. McKinley Avenue, east of Temperance Avenue. The Project site is currently exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles on E. McKinely Avenue. The distance from center of the backyards of the closest proposed lots to the centerline of E. McKinely Avenue is approximately 65 feet. Noise exposure from traffic on adjacent roadways was calculated for existing and future (2046) conditions using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and traffic data obtained from Fresno COG. The purpose of the measurement was to evaluate the accuracy of the FHWA Model in describing traffic noise exposure within the Project site.
Exterior Noise Levels
The traffic noise exposure at the closest proposed lots to E. McKinley Avenue would be approximately 56 dB Ldn for existing conditions and 55 dB Ldn for future (2046) traffic conditions on E. McKinley Avenue. The noise exposure levels do not exceed the City’s 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, and mitigation measures are therefore not required for compliance with the City’s exterior noise level standard.
Interior Noise Levels
The City’s interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn. The worst‐case noise exposure 88 within the proposed residential development would be approximately 56 dB Ldn (2046 conditions). This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 11 dB (56‐45=11). It may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior standard at all proposed lots. Mitigation Measure NSE-1 requires that mechanical ventilation or air conditioning must be provided for all homes so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. With implementation of NSE-1, Project noise impacts would be under City of Fresno interior noise level thresholds and would be less than significant.
Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the Project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the Project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) data for McKinley Avenue was obtained from Fresno COG and found an existing AADT of 1,815. The future (year 2046) for McKinley Avenue is estimated by Fresno COG as 1,309 AADT. The Project daily trips would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the Project vicinity and, therefore, would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels at receptors in the Project vicinity.
Additionally, development of the Project site would increase activity at the site. The City’s General Plan Policy NS‐1‐a through Policy NS‐1‐d, NS-1-f through NS-1-h, NS1-j, and NS-1-l through NS-1-p provide noise mitigation recommendations that would be implemented as necessary by the proposed Project. NS-1-a establishes an exterior noise threshold of 65 dB Ldn; NS-1-b applies the exterior noise threshold to residential and other sensitive receptors; NS-1-c establishes the generally unacceptable exterior noise exposure range; NS-1-d provides for an allowable exterior noise environment for BRT and activity centers; NS-1-f provides for performance standards; NS-1-g identifies potential noise mitigation measures; NS-1-h establishes an interior noise level requirement; NS-1-j establishes a significance threshold for an increase of noise levels of 3 dBA; NS-1-l provides for the enforcement of State Noise Insulation Standards and Uniform Building Code noise requirements; NS-1-m provides appropriate measures to address noise impacts related to new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources; NS-1-n requires the use of best available control technology to minimize noise emissions; NS-1-o provides sound wall guidelines; and NS-1-p implements airport noise exposure compatibility provisions.
With the implementation of General Plan policies and MM NSE-1, operation of the 89 Project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions, and the impact would be less than significant
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Table 13-2 below includes the range of vibration levels for equipment commonly used in general construction Projects at a distance of 25 feet. The table also includes predicted equipment vibration levels at the nearest existing residences to the Project site located approximately 50 feet away.
Table 13-2: Reference and Projected Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment
Reference PPV at 25
Feet1
Projected PPV at 50
Feet
Hoe ram 0.089 0.032
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.032
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.032
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Source: Appendix G
As shown above, vibration levels generated from Project construction activities at the closest sensitive receptors are predicted to be below the Caltrans thresholds for damage to residential structures of 0.5 in/sec PPV27. In addition, the Projected equipment vibration levels are within the range of the “barely/slightly perceptible” human response threshold as defined by Caltrans. Therefore, on-site construction within the Project area is not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration levels at nearby existing residential uses.
No permanent noise sources would be located within the Project site that would expose people to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are not expected to result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would not permanently expose people within or around the Project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and the impact would be less than significant. c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
27 Federal Transit Agency. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available online at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2024) 90 The nearest medical center helipads (HP) to the Project site include Clovis Community Hospital, located approximately 4.83 miles north of the Project site, Community Regional Medical Center, located approximately 7.12 miles west of the Project site, and Saint Agnes Medical Center, located approximately 7.48 miles northwest of the Project site (California Department of Transportation 2024). The nearest airports include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 2.28 miles west of the Project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately
8.89 miles southwest of the Project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 12.42 miles northwest of the Project site.
Each of these airports is considered under the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)28, which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies. The City of Fresno General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP for Fresno County. The ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. The Project site is within 2 miles of Fresno Yosemite International Airport. However, as shown in Exhibit D2 of the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to the excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
NSE-1: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units shall be provided for all homes so that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans and specifications shall include the installation of units and be submitted to the City for approval.
28 Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Amended December 2021. Available online at: https://www.fresnocog.org/project/airport-land-use-commission-fresnocounty/ (accessed December 2024) 91 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)?
Population forecasts for the City of Fresno indicate growth for the City to include 1,373,700 people by the year 2040, according to the General Plan. US Census data estimated the City to have 545,717 people in 202329. The Housing Element uses an average of 3.07 people per household. In 2020, the City of Fresno population was 542,107.
The proposed Project would include a 119-lot single-family residential subdivision with build-out resulting in an additional 119 single-family residences, and a corresponding population increase of 357 residents based on the Housing Element’s average household size of 3 residents per household. The Project population growth represents a 0.066 percent increase over the 2020 population, and a 0.065 percent increase over the projected 2040 population. The Project site is designated Residential Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre) by the General Plan and would be pre-zoned to the Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4) zoning district, which allows for a variety of single-family residences built to urban or suburban 29 U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Available online at:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2023.DP05?g=160XX00US0627000 (accessed March 2025) 92 standards to suit a spectrum of individual lifestyles and needs, and to ensure availability throughout the city of the range of housing types necessary for all segments of the community, consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed Project would result in direct population growth as the use proposed is residential. However, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The annexation only area would not result in direct or indirect population growth. The annexation only area is comprised of canals and is planned for flood control use. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth and Project impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Project site is vacant. The proposed Project would not necessitate the displacement or removal of existing housing. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
93 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed Project. There are 20 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station, Fire Station 10, located approximately 2.5 miles from the Project site.
Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in the City. The proposed use of the Project site is consistent with the site’s 94 General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the Project site would be developed consistent with its land use and pre-zoning designations. The Project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services because of additional residents to the Project site.
However, the proposed Project would be required to pay a Fire Facilities Fee and a Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.9 of the City’s Code of Ordinances to account for the potential impacts to fire services.
The General Plan includes several policies to support the activities of the Fresno Fire Department, such as PU-3-d, which requires the Fire Department to review development applications, and PU-3-e, which enforces amendments to construction and fire codes, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities. The FFD would continue providing services to the Project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed Project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. The incremental increase in demand for services would not adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
ii. Police protection?
The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the Project site. The Police Department Patrol Division is divided into five policing districts with the nearest being the Southeast Division, located approximately 2.5 miles from the Project site. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The proposed use of the Project site is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the Project site would be developed consistent with its land use and zoning designation.
The Project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services. However, the proposed Project would be required to pay a Police Impact Fee and a Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 12. Article
4.8 of the City’s Code of Ordinances to account for the potential impacts to police protection services.
The FPD would continue providing services to the Project site and would not require additional personnel to serve the proposed Project. The construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services and impacts on police protection 95 would represent a less than significant impact.
iii. Schools?
The Project site is located within Clovis Unified School District (CUSD). According to the Clovis Unified Development Fee Justification Study/School Facilities Needs Analysis, Clovis Unified School District has a TK-12 student generation rate of
0.553 for single-family residential units.30 Therefore, the proposed 119 singlefamily residential units would result in an increase of approximately 68 new students. Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) serves the northern, northeastern, and eastern areas of Fresno as well as much of the City of Clovis and nearby rural areas to the north and east. The Project site would be served by the Hirayama Elementary School (Grades TK-6), located approximately one mile west of the Project site, Sanchez Intermediate School (Grades 7-8), located approximately
1.05 miles northeast of the Project site, and Clovis South High School (Grades 9- 12), located approximately 1.05 miles northeast of the Project site.31 Both Sanchez Intermediate School and Clovis South High School are under construction and are anticipated to open in August 2025 as part of the CUSD Terry P. Bradley Educational Center.
The proposed Project would result in an impact on the CUSD student capacity.
The developer would be required to pay appropriate school fees pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 8 of the City’s Code of Ordinances to address potential impacts.
Through local funding CUSD is in a position to address its shortage of classrooms to accommodate planned population growth for the foreseeable future through the payment and use of developer impact fees. Per Government Code Section 65996 impacts on school facilities are mitigated by Level 1, 2, and 3 developer fee legislative provisions. The Project developer will pay appropriate impact fees at the time of building permits.
School fees are collected for all new residential and commercial buildings. Fees are typically higher for residential uses, as these uses are associated with increased population growth, leading to increased student population at existing schools. The Project review and approval process will ensure that all school related fees are paid by the applicant. These requirements will ensure that the proposed Project does not significantly affect school facilities. As noted, the Project will be serviced by existing school facilities in the vicinity of the site. Development impact fees administered by CUSD would offset impacts associated with the population 30 Odell Planning & Research, Inc. 2024. Development Fee Justification Study/School Facilities Needs Analysis.
Available online at:
https://www.cusd.com/Downloads/Clovis%20USD%202024%20School%20Fee%20Needs%20Analysis.pdf (accessed December 2024)
31 CUSD. 2024. Clovis Unified Boundary Map. Available online at https://maps.cusd.com/address/ (accessed December 2024).
96 increase of the development. Therefore, with implementation of standard local requirements for development Projects related to school fees, the Project does not require new or physically altered school facilities to address the increase in the student population associated with the Project. Impacts are considered less than significant.
iv. Parks?
Impacts on parks and recreational facilities are determined by analyzing the projected increase in demand for these facilities as a result of future residential development and corresponding population increase Projected under the proposed Project. According to the General Plan, the City’s standard called for at least 3.0 acres of parkland to be provided per 1,000 residents. The City maintains approximately 1,617 acres of open space and nearly 230,000 square feet of building space dedicated to recreational/educational, and 115 acres of paths and trails. Park and recreation fees (Quimby) are collected for all new residential developments. The Project review and approval process will ensure that all park related fees are paid by the developer.
The Project would include an approximately 11,376 square foot pocket park and a
1.33-acre trail. Per the City of Fresno General Plan, Citywide, Fresno has a current supply of 3.28 acres of City Park Space per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the City’s minimum standard by 0.28 acre. Including all park space in the City’s SOI increases that ratio to 4.65 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, with the anticipated population increase of 427 residents added to the 2023 City of Fresno population of 545,717 per the U.S. Census (546,144 with Project), the ratio becomes 2.96 of City maintained park space and 4.21 for all park space within the City SOI (parks owned and maintained by an HOA that are publicly accessible (no gate), public golf courses, SJRC parkland open to the public and directly accessible from the City; pocket parks maintained through Community Facility Districts (CFD); ponding basins with park improvements (excludes fenced-off flood areas); Clovis and Central Unified School District playgrounds, Fresno Unified's Burroughs Elementary and Yosemite Middle School (grass fields and courts, Kindergarten play areas, and parking areas only).
Based on the 2023 population, the City-maintained park ratio would be 2.96 and currently does not meet the performance ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents.
However with consideration of all park space within the City SOI (as defined in the General Plan), the park acreage per 1,000 residents becomes 4.21 acres. The City of Fresno has adopted a Parks Master Plan to further develop, maintain, or improve City-maintained park space throughout the City. The developer would be required to pay applicable park facilities fees, pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.7 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, to address potential impacts of the proposed 97 Project on park facilities, which includes further development of City-maintained park space to meet General Plan policy performance measures. Therefore, with the inclusion of dedicated park and trail space, open space dedicated outlots and the payment of park impact fees, the Project would pay its fair share in the development of new or expanded parks to accommodate the population as planned and adopted in the City of Fresno Parks Master Plan in addition to providing open space that would complement park space within the City SOI. impacts to parks would be less than significant.
v. Other public facilities?
The Project build-out will result in an additional 119 single-family residences, and a corresponding population increase of 357 residents based on the Housing Element’s average household size of 3 residents per household. The Project population growth represents a 0.06 percent increase in the 2040 population.
Development of the proposed Project could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities.
The Fresno County Public Library (FCPL) maintains 35 branch libraries throughout Fresno County with 13 branches spread throughout the Fresno/Clovis metro area.
The nearest public library is the Sunnyside Regional Library located approximately 3 miles southwest of the Project site. In addition to physical libraries, the FCPL also provides online resources. As the Project is located within the SOI and is accounted for in General Plan buildout, public library services are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by Project development.
There are four major health care centers in the Fresno/Clovis metro area, the Kaiser Permanent Medical Center approximately 8 miles northeast, the Saint Agnes Medical Center approximately 7 miles northeast of the Project site, the Clovis Community Medical Center, approximately 5 miles north of the Project site, and the Community Regional Medical Center approximately 7 miles east of the Project site. Additionally, there are numerous healthcare and urgent care facilities located throughout the City of Fresno and Clovis. In consideration of General Plan buildout, the existing facilities as noted above do not require substantial expansions or new facilities to accommodate growth throughout the area.
However, the proposed Project would not result in significant population growth that would increase the demand for these facilities, such that new facilities would be needed to maintain service standards, as these facilities are not currently overused and have capacity to serve new demand. Therefore, impacts from building or altering other public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
98 No mitigation is required.
99 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?
Please refer to Section XV Public Services, discussion for a.iv).
The proposed Project would include a 1.32-acre trail and 11,376 square foot park. The nearest parks to the Project site include Al Radka Park, located 1.7 miles southwest of the site, and Melody Park, located 1.6 miles northwest of the site. The proposed Project may increase the demand for recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. However, the proposed Project would include the construction of a Class I trail and pocket park.
Based on the 2023 population, the City -maintained park ratio would be 2.96 and currently does not meet the performance ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents.
However with consideration of all park space within the City SOI (as defined in the General Plan), the park acreage per 1,000 residents becomes 4.21 acres. The City of Fresno has adopted a Parks Master Plan to further develop, maintain, or improve Citymaintained park space throughout the City. 100
The developer would be required to pay park impact fees pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.7 of the City’s Code of Ordinances at the time building permits are obtained to account for potential impacts on recreational facilities. The provision of dedicated park and trail space as part of the Project, in addition to the impact fees would serve to offset Project impact on existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed Project would consist of a 119-lot single-family subdivision. The development would potentially include a 1.32-acre trail and 11,376 square foot park.
Improvements associated with the park would be typical of a neighborhood park and may include turf, landscaping, and outdoor recreational equipment to meet the needs of the residents. The developer would be required to pay applicable park facilities fees, pursuant to Chapter 12, Article 4.7 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, to mitigate address potential impacts of the proposed Project on park facilities, which includes further development of City-maintained park space to meet General Plan policy performance measures. Therefore, with the inclusion of dedicated park and trail space and the payment of park impact fees, the Project would pay its fair share in the development of new or expanded parks to accommodate the population as planned and adopted in the City of Fresno Parks Master Plan in addition to providing open space that would complement park space within the City SOI. impacts to parks would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
101
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
The analysis presented in this section is based on a Traffic Impact Analysis Report32, and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis33 prepared for the Project attached as Appendix H. The studies evaluated the build out of a larger number of residential lots than what is currently proposed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the impacts resulting from the Project would be less than those discussed in this IS/MND.
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Within proximity to the Project, there are several transportation facilities, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
32 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2025a. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Tract 6502 33 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2025b. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Tract 6502 102
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 non-motorized 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.
The ATP also identifies a Class I bike path along the San Joaquin Valley Railroad system. The Project developer would be responsible for contributing to development of the trail system and match perimeter trails to adjacent residential subdivisions.
These trails are typically graded dirt paths. Internal bike paths would be improved with landscaping and pavement. Trail development would be in accordance with alternative transportation policies included in the General Plan, the Fresno County Regional Transportation Plan, and any other adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian connectivity is not well established in the general vicinity of the site.
Sidewalks typically exist only within, and along the frontage of, adjacent residential developments. The Project would be required to construct sidewalks along its frontage. Upon submittal of development permits all applicable requirements for updating sidewalks and other related infrastructure will be required from the City of Fresno 2017 Active Transportation Plan.
Transit
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the transit operator in the City of Fresno. The closest is FAX Route 45 located at the intersection of E. Princeton and N. Fowler Avenues. (approx. 1.75 miles, as the crow flies). The Project is not expected to have a significant impact, disrupt or impede existing transit facilities.
The Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Roadways
The Project site is located on the north side of McKinley Avenue between Temperance Avenue to the west and DeWolf Avenue to the east. The Fresno General Plan Circulation Element identifies Temperance Avenue as a Super Arterial and DeWolf Avenue as a Collector. A Super Arterial roadway is defined as a four- to six-lane 103
divided (median island separation) roadway with the primary purpose of moving multiple modes of travel traffic to and from major traffic generators and among subregions. A select number of motor vehicle access points to adjacent properties or local streets between the major street intersections may be approved by the City.
Access points will be limited to right-turn entrance and exit vehicular movements, as well as select left-turn partial openings in medians from the Super Arterials to surrounding properties or neighborhoods, limited to one location per half-mile. No left turns are allowed out of local streets or properties. Collectors typically have a center two-way left-turn lane. The proposed Project will be required to construct all necessary internal street and street frontage improvements such as drive approaches, sidewalks, and curb and gutter improvements to City development standards.
The Project site is located within Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ-III). TIZ-III represents areas near or outside the city limits but within the SOI. Pursuant to General Plan Policy MT-2-I, maintenance of a peak hour LOS standard of D or better for all intersections and roadway segments and traffic impact study will be required for all development projects to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 17-1 presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Single-Family Detached Housing. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,132 daily trips, 84 AM peak hour trips and 113 PM peak hour trips.
Table 17-1
Project Trip Generation
Land Use
(ITE Code)
Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total
Trip
Rate
In
%
Out
%
In Out Total
Trip
Rate
In
%
Out
%
In Out Total
Single-Family
Detached
Housing (210)
119 Dwelling
Units 9.43 1,122 0.70 26 74 22 62 84 0.94 63 37 71 42 113 Total
Driveway
Trips
1,132 22 62 84 71 42 113
Source: Appendix H
Table 17-2 presents a summary of the Existing plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 17.3 presents a summary of the Existing plus Project peak hour LOS at the study roadway segments.
Table 17-2
Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Results
104
Intersection Intersection
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Temperance
Avenue/Clinton
Avenue
Traffic Signal 31.3 C 19.8 B
Temperance
Avenue/McKinley
Avenue
One-Way Stop 21.4 C 22.4 C
Project Driveway
A/McKinley
Avenue
One-Way Stop 9.9 A 9.2 A
Project Driveway
B/McKinley
Avenue
One-Way Stop 9.5 A 9.1 A
Temperance
Avenue/Olive
Avenue
All-Way Stop 101.2 F 57.5 F
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
19.6 B 21.4 C
Temperance
Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
All-Way Stop 42.2 E 23.8 C
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
21.7 C 20.0 C
Source: Appendix H
Table 17-3
Existing plus Project Segment LOS Results
Segment Limits Lanes 24-hour
Volume
AM Peak
Volume
AM LOS PM Peak
Volume
PM LOS
Temperance
Avenue
Clinton
Avenue and
McKinley
Avenue
2 12,645 1,134 D 1,091 D
Temperance
Avenue
McKinley
Avenue and
Floradora
Avenue
2 12,267 978 C 1,008 C
Temperance
Avenue
Floradora
Avenue and
Olive
Avenue
2 11,881 867 C 930 C
Source: Appendix H
Under this scenario, the intersections of Temperance Avenue at Olive Avenue and Temperance Avenue at Belmont Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during both peak periods. It is important to note that traffic signals are currently in the process of being designed or constructed at these intersections. The TIA recommends the following improvements be implemented to improve LOS at the identified intersections.
105
• Temperance Avenue/Olive Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.
• Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove right-turn lane;
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and
o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.
Table 17-4 presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections. Table 17-5 presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study segments.
Table 17-4
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Intersection LOS Results Intersection Intersection
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Temperance
Avenue / Clinton
Avenue
Traffic Signal <120.0 F 30.3 C
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
52.7 D 22.1 C
Temperance
Avenue /
McKinley Avenue
Traffic Signal 85.7 F 65.8 E
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
41.7 D 31.8 C
106
Project Driveway
A / McKinley
Avenue
One-Way Stop 14.5 B 10.2 B
Project Driveway
B / McKinley
Avenue
One-Way Stop 13.0 B 10.0 B
Temperance
Avenue / Olive
Avenue
Traffic Signal 58.3 E 45.2 D
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
39.3 D 24.2 C
Temperance
Avenue /
Belmont Avenue
Traffic Signal 90.0 F 43.7 D
Traffic Signal
(Improved)
29.3 C 22.0 C
Source: Appendix H
Table 17-5
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Segment LOS Results
Segment Limits Lanes 24-hour
Volume
AM Peak
Volume
AM LOS PM Peak
Volume
PM LOS
Temperance
Avenue
Clinton
Avenue and
McKinley
Avenue
2 15,571 2,011 E 1,929 E
4 B B
Temperance
Avenue
McKinley
Avenue and
Floradora
Avenue
2 17,319 2,134 E 1,923 E
4 B B
Temperance
Avenue
Floradora
Avenue and
Olive
Avenue
2 17,145 1,905 E 1,798 E
4 B B
Source: Appendix H
Under this scenario, the intersections Temperance Avenue at Clinton Avenue, Temperance Avenue at McKinley Avenue, Temperance Avenue at Olive Avenue and Temperance Avenue at Belmont Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. It is recommended that the following improvements be considered for implementation to improve the LOS at these intersections. • Temperance Avenue / Clinton Avenue
o Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add an eastbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
107
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue / McKinley Avenue
o Modify the northbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane north of McKinley Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane south of McKinley Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue / Olive Avenue
o Add a second northbound through lane with a receiving lane north of McKinley Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane south of McKinley Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue
o Add a second northbound through lane with a receiving lane north of Belmont Avenue;
o Add a second southbound through lane with a receiving lane south of Belmont Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue between Clinton Avenue and Olive Avenue o Modify the roadway segment to accommodate increase from a two-lane facility to a four-lane facility.
It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table 17-6 for the improvements necessary to return the intersection to an acceptable LOS.
However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities or portion thereof not funded by the responsible agencies roadway impact fee program(s) or grant funding, as appropriate. For those improvements not presently covered by local and regional roadway impact fee programs or grant funding, it is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share. Payment of the Project’s equitable fair share in addition to the local and regional impact fee programs would satisfy the Project’s traffic cumulative traffic impacts.
The Project’s fair share percentage impact to the intersections as requested by the City or County is provided in Table 17-6. The Project’s fair share percentage impacts were calculated using the Caltrans pro-rata fair share formula. The Project’s pro-rata fair shares were calculated utilizing the Existing, 2046 Project Only Trips and Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project volumes. Considering these intersections largely require improvements due to the operation of the new Terry Bradley Educational Center, the critical peak period for the study facilities was determined to be during the AM peak period. Therefore, the AM peak traffic volumes are utilized to determine the Project’s pro-rata fair share.
108
Table 17-6
Project’s Fair Share
Intersection Existing Traffic
Volumes (AM
Peak)
Cumulative Year
2046 plus Project
Traffic Volumes
(AM Peak
Project Only Trips
(AM Peak)
Project’s Fair
Share (%)
Dewolf Avenue /
McKinley Avenue
1,018 2,317 8 0.62%
Leonard Avenue /
McKinley Avenue
637 1,657 3 0.29%
Fowler Avenue / Olive
Avenue
1,845 3,082 23 1.86%
Source: Appendix H
With the implementation of the recommendation improvements made to studied intersections and roadway segments, the transportation facilities are anticipated to operate at or below the threshold of significance of LOS D or better. The recommendations of the TIA are proposed to be implemented as Mitigation Measure TRA-1 for the recommended roadway and intersection improvements and TRA-2 for the payment of equitable fair share costs associated with future improvements.
Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the City’s General Plan or a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and result in a less than significant impact with the implementation of MM TRA-1 and TRA-2.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 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 threshold for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any 109
assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7.
The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds 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.”
For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The Fresno VMT Thresholds document includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans. These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Fresno VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%. The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.
The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional thresholds set by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG). For residential and nonresidential (except retail) development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by more than 13% are less than significant. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is any net increase in VMT per employee compared to existing VMT per employee. Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a development project are determined using 110
the COG Activity Based Model (ABM), which is a tour-based model.
The threshold for residential land uses is a maximum of (16.10 X (1.00 - 0.13) = 14.01)
14.01 VMT per capita. The for The threshold for office land uses is a maximum of (25.60 X (1.00 - 0.13) = 22.27) 22.27 VMT per employee. The threshold for retail land uses is aa net zero (0) increase in regional VMT for retail land uses. The threshold for “Other” land uses is 25.60 VMT per employee if they are consistent with the General Plan and 22.27 VMT per employee if they require a General Plan Amendment. As this Project falls under the “Residential” VMT category, the target threshold for this Project which is consistent with the General Plan, is 14.01 VMT per capita. 14.01 VMT per capita.
In addition to utilizing Fresno COG ABM for VMT, the City provides an Urban Form VMT Calculator that takes into consideration detailed parameters of a project design and internal street system data to determine the adjusted VMT of a project. Based on the Fresno COG VMT, the baseline VMT for the Project is 16.10 VMT per capita. From the baseline VMT, the adjusted VMT based on the Fresno Urban Form VMT calculator becomes 14.70 VMT. Therefore, a 0.69 VMT per capita reduction is necessary to be below the significance threshold of 14.01 VMT per capita.
The VMT Analysis (Appendix H) indicates that the following VMT reducing measures have already been implemented based on the design of the Project including increased destination accessibility, improved design of development, pedestrian network improvements and implementation of traffic calming measures. It was further recommended that 25% of the intersections (three intersections) include traffic calming measures, i.e., intersection roundabouts. The identified intersections are Hornet Avenue at Peralta Way, Hornet Avenue at University Avenue and Hornet Avenue at Normal Avenue, as shown on VTM 6502 (Appendix A). The implementation of traffic calming measures at the identified intersections shall be included as Mitigation Measure TRA-3 to ensure that the intersections are appropriately designed to help reduce speeds and result in a reduction in VMT. The VMT Analysis concluded that the Project design and inclusion of traffic calming measures at the identified intersections would result in a reduction of 1.21 VMT per capita, resulting in a 13.49 VMT per capita. Therefore, the Project with the implementation of TRA-3 will result in a less than significant impact with regard to adopted VMT thresholds and does not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Project will be designed to current standards and safety regulations. All intersections will be constructed to comply with City regulations, and design and safety standards of 111
Chapter 33 of the California Building Codes (CBC) and the guidelines of Title 24 in order to create safe and accessible roadways.
Vehicular access to each home would be provided with individual driveways with direct access to the internal circulation roads that will connect to McKinley Avenue. In addition, the Project design features would be required to comply with standards set by the City’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed Project would also be required to submit plans to the FFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure there are no substantial hazards associated with the Project design. 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. McKinley Avenue between Temperance Avenue and DeWolf Avenue is designated as a Collector in the City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element. Design standards pursuant to City of Fresno policies for Collector classified streets would be implemented and include pedestrian and bicycle lane amenities. Under the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP), this section of McKinley Avenue would be improved with a Class I Bike Path that conforms with City of Fresno design standards. The implementation of the design standards, including pedestrian and bike paths would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. The Project would not alter pedestrian or vehicle access to the Project site or introduce incompatible design features or equipment that would substantially increase the risk of hazards. Therefore, with the incorporated design features and all applicable rules and regulations, the Project will have a less than significant impact..
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed Project would include construction of single-family homes, roadways, sidewalks, sewer, water, and associated utilities. Vehicular access to each home would be provided with individual driveways with direct access onto public roadways. The proposed Project would allow for multiple access points to McKinely Avenue and the Project would require approval by the City of Fresno Fire Department and the City of Fresno Police Department. Emergency vehicles would have access to the Project site via internal public right-of-way and emergency access would not be impacted as a result of the proposed Project. Furthermore, roads adjacent to the Project site would not require closure during Project construction. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant..
Mitigation Measures
TRA-1: The Project applicant/developer shall work with the City of Fresno, Department of Public Works to implement the intersection and roadway segment improvements as recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis to reduce impacts to LOS. These improvements include:
• Temperance Avenue/Olive Avenue
112
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.
• Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove right-turn lane;
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and
o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.
• Temperance Avenue / Clinton Avenue
o Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add an eastbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue / McKinley Avenue
o Modify the northbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane north of McKinley Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane south of McKinley Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue / Olive Avenue
o Add a second northbound through lane with a receiving lane north of McKinley Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a receiving lane south of McKinley Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. 113
• Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue
o Add a second northbound through lane with a receiving lane north of Belmont Avenue;
o Add a second southbound through lane with a receiving lane south of Belmont Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the additional lanes. • Temperance Avenue between Clinton Avenue and Olive Avenue o Modify the roadway segment to accommodate increase from a two-lane facility to a four-lane facility.
The recommended improvements shall be implemented through participation in the TSMI fee program, Fresno Major Street Impact Fee Program, and/or Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program by paying the applicable fees in place at the time or development, or through an alternative method acceptable to the City.
TRA-2: The Applicant shall pay the City of Fresno for their Fair Share portion of intersection improvements in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service for the intersections listed:
o DeWolf Avenue / McKinely Avenue: 0.62%
o Leonard Avenue / McKinely Avenue: 0.29%
o Fowler Avenue / Olive Avenue: 1.86%
TRA-3: The Project shall implement traffic calming measures at 25% of the intersections (three intersections) within the Project site. Hornet Avenue at Peralta Way, Hornet Avenue at University Avenue and Hornet Avenue at Normal Avenue shall implement traffic calming measures. The selected traffic calming measure provides for the development of roundabouts at the identified intersections. Traffic calming measures shall be designed and developed in accordance with City of Fresno development standards. 114
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
115
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
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 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)).
As previously discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain historical resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in any local listing for Fresno County or the City of Fresno. Furthermore, the area surrounding the Project site does not contain any listed historical resources.
A records search covering an area within one-half mile of the Project indicated that the subject property has never been surveyed for cultural resources, and it is not known if any exist on it. Five previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within half a mile of the Project. Two cultural resources, a historic residence (Primary no. P-10-005363) and a prehistoric lithic scatter (P-10- 002189), have been recorded within one half mile of the Project. A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated January 13, 2025, indicates negative results.
An intensive Phase I survey of the Project Site was conducted on January 24, 2024, by qualified archaeologists. The entire parcel was surveyed at 15-meter intervals, including the northern five acres accommodating residential buildings after permission was granted. No cultural resources of any kind were identified as a result of the intensive pedestrian survey.
The house that was originally located on the site has been removed. No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the Project site. However, Project development could result in potential impacts to unknown resources that are located below the ground surface. Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation 116
Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown historical resources to less than significant.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and Dumna Who Wah Tribe were invited to consult. The contracted Tribes did not provide a response to invitations to consult.
If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3 included above in Section V, Cultural Resources, would apply to the Project and would reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological historical resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3
117
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
DISCUSSION
118
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The Project site is within the SOI immediately adjacent to the City’s corporate limits and will be annexed into the City. Thus, the Project will be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. The Project site was previously developed and is located immediately adjacent to other residential subdivisions, thus there is existing utility infrastructure including water, sewer, stormwater, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunication services to which the Project would connect. Further, development of the Project site has been reviewed by the City and responsible agencies through the entitlement review process. The entitlement review process ensures that the future development is developed in accordance with applicable regulations including the permitted intensity and massing development standards. Consequently, the Project would be consistent with the planned land use previously accounted for in the Fresno General Plan and subsequent utility master plans including the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and 2019 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.
The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed Project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner which is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. Construction and operation of sewer infrastructure for the Project would be typical of such facilities, and there is no evidence to suggest that it would result in any additional significant effects not evaluated herein. Therefore, the relocation or construction of new or expanded sanitary sewer and water services would not occur as a result of the Project. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and thus, can be adequately served by all required utilities and service systems. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
Impacts on storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed in Section X, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. While the proposed Project would result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction such facilities would be required to comply with the City’s grading plan check process, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan (SDFCMP), and requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit. Additionally, the parcels owned and maintained by FMFCD are identified in the General Plan as a future regional stormwater retention base. As such, construction of storm drainage facilities for the proposed Project would 119
be consistent with construction and design standards for the City, and the impact would be less than significant.
Sanitary sewer and water service under the City’s 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 Citywide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply, treatment, and storage.
Therefore, the impacts of the Project are less than significant b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The long-term average day operational water demand will be for the residential users and is anticipated to be approximately 30.10 million gallons per year or 92.37 acrefeet per year at total buildout of the Project. This is based on each residential unit having an average day water demand of 693 gallons per day (based on the 198-gallon per capita/day average in the 2020 City of Fresno UWMP and 3.5 people per unit) across the entire buildout of 119 units for the Project.
As discussed under Section VII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (b, c(i)-c(iii) and e, based on the 2020 UWMP, the water supplies for the City (357,330 Acre Feet (AF)/year) are adequate to accommodate the demand in the City by 2045 (i.e., 241,447 AF/year). The proposed Project buildout would result in approximately 92.37 AF/year of water demand which is 0.038% of the available water supply of the City in the worst-case scenario of the fifth year of the five consecutive dry year supply and demand comparison (Table 10-3). The Project is within the City SOI and would prezone the Project site to match the planned land use designations identified in the Fresno General Plan upon annexation of the site. As such, the proposed Project would be included within the growth estimates that the 2020 UWMP accounted for.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan and would therefore be covered by the City’s water supply projections. As a result, there would be sufficient water supply for the Project, and the impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The City 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 120
Clovis, and some unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The proposed Project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The RWRF currently has a capacity of 91.5 million gallons per day (mgd). The North Facility has a capacity of 0.71 mgd. The Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed Project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies. The proposed Project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing wastewater-related services and facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Household municipal waste is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐ recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman.
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.34
Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill (City of Clovis Landfill 10-AA-0004) with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.35
Using a standard residential operational waste generation rate of 6.7 pounds/resident/day, operation of the proposed Project would generate approximately
1.22 tons of solid waste per day or about 440440.9 tons of solid waste per year (6.7 pounds/resident/day x 119 residential units x 3 residents per household = 2,412392 pounds/day / 2,000 pounds/ton = 1.22 tons/day x 365 days/year = 440440.19 tons/year / 1.4 = 314314.42 cubic yards/year).36 Given the available capacity at the 34 CalRecycle. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352 (accessed December 2024)
35 CalRecycle. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/347 (accessed December 2024)
36 CalRecycle. 2019. California’s 2019 Per Capita Disposal Rate Estimate. Available online at:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/#:~:text=California%20has%20a 121
landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed Project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste are handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act requires jurisdictions to attain specific waste diversion goals (AB 939, 2019). In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development Projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed Project design. Reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. With development in accordance with the General Plan, solid waste will continue to be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste disposal. The City has a number of provisions that require or promote recycling and waste reduction, including the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance that requires contractors to recycle construction and demolition debris.
The City Council adopted the City of Fresno Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities Ordinance (Ord. No. 2003-100) in order to comply with AB 939, which requires the implementation of integrated waste management plans and mandates that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste. The recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building, relocation, or demolition permit that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume. The Project would generate solid waste during construction and operation of the new single-family residences. Common construction waste may include metals, masonry, plastic pipes, rocks, dirt, cardboard, or green waste related to land development. AB 939 and Ordinance No. 2003-100 require the City of Fresno to attain specific waste diversion goals. The waste disposal facilities listed above have adequate capacity to accept construction waste from potential new facilities. The proposed Project would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste management policies and recommendations from the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update The proposed Project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies. Therefore, %20population%20of%2039.7%20million%20residents,measurement%20system%20and%20a%20recycling%2 0rate%20of%2037%25.
122
the proposed Project would not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
123
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
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Fresno’s Police and Fire Departments are tasked with all local emergency response efforts. In addition, the City’s full-time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up-to- 124
date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The proposed Project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the City of Fresno or an adopted emergency response plan. The Project site would develop internal circulation roads that are subject to City development standards, which would provide adequate emergency access. All Project plans submitted to the City will be reviewed for compliance with federal, State and local regulations related to emergency access. The Project is required to comply with all local, State, and federal regulations related to emergency preparedness, and would not result in environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
See IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (g). 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 in an increasingly urban area and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
37 The Project site does not possess physical
characteristics that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and potentially expose Project occupants to pollutants from wildfire. The impact would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
See discussion under WILDFIRE (a) above. The Project site is located in a developed area of the City, and it would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would increase the risk of fire or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts, outside of what is already implemented according to City plans. Additionally, all new single-family residences would be required to comply with federal, State, and local health and safety regulations, development standards, 37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2008. Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planningengineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ (accessed December 2024) 125
building codes, and other laws and regulations that govern fire protection and suppression. The impact would be less than significant.. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
In general, Fresno is categorized as having little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which can be attributed to its impervious surface areas. The area along the San Joaquin River bluff is an exception, as it is prone to wildfires due to steep terrain and native vegetation. The Project site comprises a relatively flat property just outside of the city limits in an area planned for and developed with urban uses, including residential uses, and is approximately eight (8) miles southeast of the San Joaquin River. In addition, the site nor the City of Fresno are identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) as being in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFHSZ). Rather, the city, inclusive of the Project site, is in an “area of local responsibility” that is an area of low fire risk The Project site is located in a relatively flat area and is not located adjacent to any hills. In general, the potential for land sliding or slope failure in Fresno is very low and the Project site would not be susceptible to landslides. The Project site is also not located on a flood hazard zone and would not be susceptible to flooding because of post-fire drainage changes. As discussed above, the Project is not located within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
126
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
x
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
x
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 127
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? Refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, and Section V, Cultural Resources. The Project will implement mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-77 and CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 to reduce impacts on biological and cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed Project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The proposed Project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable due to the site-specific nature of the potential impacts. The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Transportation. These impacts would primarily be related to construction-period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics.
Implementation of mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-2, BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL1, 2, and 3, GEO-1,NSE-1, and TRA-1 through TRA-3 would ensure that the Project complies with the City of Fresno General Plan, or established thresholds of significance. Since the proposed Project would not result in any significant Projectlevel impacts, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would combine with the impacts of other cumulative Projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as found in the analyses above. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
For the topics of Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire, the Project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the Project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics.
All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Project would 128
be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document.
Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the Project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative Projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of Project development.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could directly or indirectly impact human beings have been evaluated in this environmental document. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-2, BIO-1 through BIO-7, CUL-1 through CUL-3, GEO-1, NSE-1, and TRA-1 through TRA-3 all environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings would be less than significant .
230286
1 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 6502, Annexation Application No. P24-04526, Pre-zone Application No. P24-04527, and Planned Development Permit Application No. P25- 00027
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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6502, Annexation Application No. P24-04526, Pre-zone Application No. P24-04527, and Planned Development Permit Application No.
P25-00027 (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 the 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 “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The third column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring Schedule,” refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The fifth column, entitled “Verification,” will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to the project specific mitigation. 230286
2 This page left intentionally blank.
230286
3 Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
I. 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 Developer Public Works
Department /
Planning and
Development
Department
AES-2: Materials used on building facades shall be
non‐reflective.
Building materials to be
used confirmed during plan
check, prior to issuance of
building permits.
Project Developer Planning and
Development
Department
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Agricultural and Forestry Resources.
III. AIR QUALITY
There are no significant impacts to Air Quality
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Within 14 days prior to the start of Project
ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey
should be conducted by a qualified biologist
knowledgeable in the identification of these species.
Surveys for active, known, potential, and natal SJKF
dens within and adjacent to the Project Area will be
Within 14 days prior to
ground-disturbing activities Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
4 conducted following the USFWS’ “Standardized
recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin
kit fox (SJKF) prior to or during ground disturbance”
(2011). Surveys for active western burrowing owl
burrows within and adjacent to the Project Area will
be conducted following the CDFG’s “Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (2012). If, during
construction activities, a live burrowing owl,
American badger, or SJKF is encountered, all
construction activity shall stop in the affected area
until the animal leaves of its own volition. The
special-status species shall be avoided by
construction activities and construction workers and
allowed to leave the Project site without
harassment. If no evidence of special status species
is observed during the survey, no further action is
warranted,
b) A report outlining the results of the
preconstruction clearance survey shall be
prepared and submitted to City of Fresno
prior to the issuance of grading or building
permits
BIO-2: Within 14 days prior to the start of Project
ground-disturbing activities, a pre-construction
activity survey with a 250-foot buffer where land
access is permitted shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist knowledgeable in the identification of these
species and approved by the CDFW. Surveys need
not be conducted for all areas at one time; they may
be phased so that surveys occur within 14 days of
the portion of the Project Site that will be disturbed.
If dens/burrows that could support any of these
species are discovered during the pre-activity
survey (BIO-1), the avoidance buffers outlined
Within 14 days prior to
ground-disturbing activities Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
5 below shall be established. No work would occur
within these buffers unless the biologist approves
and monitors the activity.
Western Burrowing Owl (active burrows)
• April 1-August 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance– 500 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• August 16-October 15
o Low disturbance – 200 m
o Medium disturbance – 200 m
o High disturbance – 500 m
• October 16-March 31
o Low disturbance – 50 m
o Medium disturbance – 100 m
o High disturbance – 500m
American Badger/SJKF
• Potential or Atypical den – 50 feet
• Known den – 100-feet
• Natal or pupping den – 500 feet,
unless otherwise specified by CDFW.
If burrowing owl are found within these
recommended buffers and avoidance is not
possible, consultation with CDFW may allow burrow
exclusion by a qualified biologist and only during the
non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is
exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty
through non-invasive methods, such as
surveillance.
.
230286
6 BIO-3: If evidence of these species is observed, a
qualified biologist shall remain on-call throughout
the construction phase if a western burrowing owl,
American badger, or SJKF occurs on the site
during construction. If one of these species occurs
on-site, work shall be halted in that area. The
biologist shall be contacted immediately to
determine whether biological monitoring or the
implementation of avoidance buffers may be
warranted.
During construction Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
BIO-4: The following avoidance and minimization
measures shall be implemented during all phases of
the Project to reduce the potential for impact from
the Project. They are modified from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Standardized
Recommendations for Protection of the
Endangered SJKF Prior to or During Ground
Disturbance (USFWS 2011, Appendix E).
a. All food-related trash items such as
wrappers, cans, bottles, and food
scraps shall be disposed of in
securely closed containers and
removed at least once a week from
the construction or Project Site.
b. Construction-related vehicle traffic
shall be restricted to established
roads and predetermined ingress and
egress corridors, staging, and
parking areas. Vehicle speeds shall
not exceed 20 miles per hour (mph)
within the Project Site.
c. A Worker Environmental Awareness
Training Program shall be prepared
and presented to all workers that will
During construction Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
7 be on-site during construction
activities
d. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of
kit fox or other animals during
construction, the contractor shall
cover all excavated, steep-walled
holes or trenches more than two feet
deep at the close of each workday
with plywood or similar materials. If
holes or trenches cannot be covered,
one or more escape ramps
constructed of earthen fill or wooden
planks shall be installed in the trench.
Before such holes or trenches are
filled, the contractor shall thoroughly
inspect them for entrapped animals.
All construction-related pipes,
culverts, or similar structures with a
diameter of four-inches or greater
that are stored on the Project Site
shall be thoroughly inspected for
wildlife before the pipe is
subsequently buried, capped, or
otherwise used or moved in any way.
If at any time an entrapped or injured
kit fox is discovered, work in the
immediate area shall be temporarily
halted and USFWS and CDFW shall
be consulted.
e. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like
structures such as pipes and may
enter stored pipes and become
trapped or injured. All construction
pipes, culverts, or similar structures
with a diameter of four inches or
greater that are stored at a
230286
8 construction site for one or more
overnight periods shall be thoroughly
inspected for kit foxes before the pipe
is subsequently buried, capped, or
otherwise used or moved in any way.
If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe,
that section of pipe shall not be
moved until the USFWS and CDFW
have been consulted. If necessary,
and under the direct supervision of
the biologist, the pipe may be moved
only once to remove it from the path
of construction activity, until the fox
has escaped.
f. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall
be permitted on the Project sites to
prevent harassment, mortality of kit
foxes, or destruction of dens.
g. Use of anti-coagulant rodenticides
and herbicides in Project sites shall
be restricted. This is necessary to
prevent primary or secondary
poisoning of kit foxes and the
depletion of prey populations on
which they depend. All uses of such
compounds shall observe label and
other restrictions mandated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, California Department of
Food and Agriculture, and other State
and Federal legislation, as well as
additional Project-related restrictions
deemed necessary by the USFWS
and CDFW. If rodent control must be
conducted, zinc phosphide shall be
230286
9 used because of the proven lower
risk to kit foxes.
h. A representative shall be appointed
by the Project proponent who will be
the contact source for any employee
or contractor who might inadvertently
kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a
dead, injured, or entrapped kit fox.
The representative shall be identified
during the employee education
program and their name and
telephone number shall be provided
to the USFWS.
i. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be
notified in writing within three working
days of the accidental death or injury
to a SJKF during Project-related
activities. Notification must include
the date, time, and location of the
incident or of the finding of a dead or
injured animal and any other
pertinent information. The USFWS
contact is the Chief of the Division of
Endangered Species, at the
addresses and telephone numbers
below. The CDFW contact can be
reached at (559) 243-4014 and
[email protected].
j. All sightings of the SJKF shall be
reported to the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy
of the reporting form and a
topographic map clearly marked with
the location of where the kit fox was
230286
10 observed shall also be provided to
the Service at the address below.
k. Any Project-related information
required by the USFWS or questions
concerning the above conditions, or
their implementation may be directed
in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service at: Endangered Species
Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W
2605, Sacramento, California 95825-
1846, phone: (916) 414-6620 or
(916) 414-6600.
BIO-5: If Project construction activities must occur
during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season
(February 15 to August 31), pre-construction
activity surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s
hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended
Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk
Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley,
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
(CDFG, 2000). The timing and the number of
phases of surveys can be adjusted based on the
timing of the construction schedule. The surveys
may be phased to coincide with active construction
areas plus a 0.5-mile buffer of those areas. If no
active nests are observed during the surveys, no
additional action is required. A copy of the survey
report shall be submitted to the City of Fresno prior
to the issuance of grading or building permits.
Within 14 days prior to
ground-disturbing activities Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
BIO-6: No mature trees that could be used by
nesting Swainson’s hawk will be removed during
construction of the Project. If an active Swainson’s
During construction
activities Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
11 hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5
miles of active construction, a qualified biologist
shall complete an assessment of the potential for
current construction activities to impact the nest.
The assessment would consider the type of
construction activities, the location of construction
relative to the nest, the visibility of construction
activities from the nest location, and other existing
disturbances in the area that are not related to the
construction activities of this Project. Based on this
assessment, the biologist will determine if
construction activities can proceed, and the level of
nest monitoring required. Construction activities
shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest but
depending upon conditions at the site this distance
may be reduced. Full-time monitoring to evaluate
the effects of construction activities on nesting
Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified
biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing
the nest. These buffers may need to increase
depending on the sensitivity of the nesting
Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the
discretion of the qualified biologist. No avoidance
would be needed if construction occurs near a
known Swainson’s hawk nest outside of the
Swainson’s hawk nesting season.
BIO-7: If Project construction activities will be
initiated during the nesting season (February 1 to
September 15), a preconstruction activity nesting
bird survey shall be conducted within 14 days prior
to the start of ground disturbance activities. The
surveys shall encompass the Project site and
accessible land visible from accessible areas
Within 14 days prior to
ground-disturbing activities Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
12 within a 250-foot buffer for songbirds and a 500-
foot buffer for raptors.
The surveys may be phased with the construction
of the Project. If no active nests are found, no
further action is required. However, existing nests
may become active and new nests may be built at
any time prior to and throughout the nesting
season, including when construction activities are
in progress. Surveys for burrowing owl will follow
CDFW protocol.
If active nests are found during the survey or at
any time during construction of the Project, an
avoidance buffer ranging from 50 feet to 500 feet
may be required, with the avoidance buffer from
any specific nest being determined by a qualified
biologist. The avoidance buffer will remain in place
until the biologist has determined that the young
are no longer reliant on the adults or the nest, or if
breeding attempts have otherwise been
unsuccessful. Work may occur within the
avoidance buffer under the approval and guidance
of the biologist, but full-time monitoring may be
required. The biologist shall have the ability to stop
construction if nesting adults show any sign of
distress.
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
Before or during
construction
Project Developer Planning and
Development
Department
230286
13 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..
CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of
the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a
project will include excavation or construction
activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric
Prior to the issuance of
building or grading permits.
Project Developer Planning and
Development
Department /
Qualified
Cultural
230286
14 archaeological resources shall be conducted. The
following procedures shall be followed.
If prehistoric resources are not found during either
the field survey or literature search, excavation
and/or construction activities can commence. In
the event that buried prehistoric archaeological
resources are discovered during excavation and/or
construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted to determine
whether the resource requires further study. The
qualified archaeologist shall make
recommendations to the City on the measures that
shall be implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including but not limited to excavation of
the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If
the resources are determined to be unique
prehistoric archaeological resources as defined
under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines,
mitigation measures shall be identified by the
monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate measures for significant resources
could include avoidance or capping, incorporation
of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or
data recovery excavations of the finds. No further
grading shall occur in the area of the discovery
until the Lead Agency approves the measures to
protect these resources. Any prehistoric
archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of
mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved
institution or person who is capable of providing
Resources
Specialist
230286
15 long‐term preservation to allow future scientific
study.
If prehistoric resources are found during the field
survey or literature review, the resources shall be
inventoried using appropriate State record forms
and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center. The resources shall be
evaluated for significance. If the resources are
found to be significant, measures shall be identified
by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to the above,
appropriate mitigation measures for significant
resources could include avoidance or capping,
incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or
open space, or data recovery excavations of the
finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for
excavation and construction activities in the vicinity
of the resources found during the field survey or
literature review shall include an archaeological
monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined
by the qualified archaeologist. If additional
prehistoric archaeological resources are found
during excavation and/or construction activities, the
procedure identified above for the discovery of
unknown resources shall be followed.
CUL-3: In the event that human remains are
unearthed during excavation and grading activities
of any future development project, all activity shall
cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety
Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the
During construction of the
project.
Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
16 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.
VI. ENERGY
There are no significant impacts to Energy.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: A field survey and literature search for
unique paleontological/geological resources shall
be conducted prior to the issuance of grading
permits. The following procedures shall be followed:
• If unique paleontological/geological
resources are not found during either the
field survey or literature search, excavation
and/or construction activities can
Prior to issuance of grading
permit and during
construction of the project.
Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
230286
17 commence. In the event that unique
paleontological/geological resources are
discovered during excavation and/or
construction activities, construction shall
stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and
a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted
to determine whether the resource requires
further study. The qualified paleontologist
shall make 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. If the resources
are determined to be significant, mitigation
measures shall be identified by the monitor
and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate mitigation measures for
significant resources could include
avoidance or capping, incorporation of the
site in green space, parks, or open space,
or data recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of
the discovery until the Lead Agency
approves the measures to protect these
resources. Any paleontological/geological
resources recovered as a result of mitigation
shall be provided to a City‐approved
institution or person who is capable of
providing long-term preservation to allow
future scientific study. A report outlining the
results of the survey shall be submitted to
the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of
grading permits. If no paleontological
resources are identified, no further action is
warranted.
230286
18 • If unique paleontological/geological
resources are found during the field survey,
the resources shall be inventoried and
evaluated for significance. If the resources
are found to be significant, mitigation
measures shall be identified by the qualified
paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate
mitigation measures for significant
resources could include avoidance or
capping, incorporation of the site in green
space, parks, or open space, or data
recovery excavations of the finds. In
addition, appropriate mitigation for
excavation and construction activities in the
vicinity of the resources found during the
field survey or literature review shall include
a paleontological monitor. The monitoring
period shall be determined by the qualified
paleontologist. If additional
paleontological/geological resources are
found during excavation and/or construction
activities, the procedure identified above for
the discovery of unknown resources shall be
followed
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 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
230286
19 There are no significant impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are no significant impacts to Land Use Planning
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no significant impacts to Mineral Resources
XIII. NOISE
NSE-1: Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) units shall be provided for all homes so
that windows and doors can remain closed for
sound insulation purposes. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, plans and specifications shall
include the installation of units and be submitted to
the City for approval.
Prior to issuance of
issuance of grading or
construction permits.
Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department
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
TRA-1: The Project applicant/developer shall work
with the City of Fresno, Department of Public
Works to implement the intersection and roadway
Prior to issuance of
building permit Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department /
230286
20 segment improvements as recommended in the
Traffic Impact Analysis to reduce impacts to LOS.
These improvements include: • Temperance Avenue/Olive Avenue o Add an eastbound left-turn lane; o Modify the eastbound leftthrough-right lane to a throughright lane; o Add a westbound left-turn lane; o Modify the westbound leftthrough-right lane to a throughright lane; o Add a northbound left-turn lane; o Modify the northbound leftthrough-right lane to a throughright lane; o Add a southbound left-turn lane; o Modify the southbound leftthrough-right lane to a through lane;
o Add a southbound right-turn lane;
and
o Signalize the intersection with
protective left-turn phasing in all
directions.
• Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue o Add an eastbound left-turn lane; o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through
lane to a through-right lane;
o Remove right-turn lane;
o Add a northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound left-
Public Works
Department
230286
21 through-right lane to a through-
right lane;
o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the southbound left-
through-right lane to a through-
right lane; and
o Signalize the intersection with
protective left-turn phasing in all
directions.
• Temperance Avenue / Clinton Avenue o Modify the eastbound throughright lane to a through lane; o Add an eastbound right-turn lane; o Modify the westbound throughright lane to a through lane; o Add a westbound right-turn lane; o Modify the southbound throughright lane to a through lane; o Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the traffic signal to
accommodate the additional
lanes.
• Temperance Avenue / McKinley Avenue o Modify the northbound right-turn lane to a through-right lane with a
receiving lane north of McKinley
Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn
lane to a through-right lane with a
receiving lane south of McKinley
Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to
accommodate the additional
lanes.
• Temperance Avenue / Olive Avenue
230286
22 o Add a second northbound through
lane with a receiving lane north of
McKinley Avenue;
o Modify the southbound right-turn
lane to a through-right lane with a
receiving lane south of McKinley
Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to
accommodate the additional
lanes.
• Temperance Avenue / Belmont Avenue
o Add a second northbound through
lane with a receiving lane north of
Belmont Avenue;
o Add a second southbound
through lane with a receiving lane
south of Belmont Avenue; and
o Modify the traffic signal to
accommodate the additional
lanes.
• Temperance Avenue between Clinton
Avenue and Olive Avenue
o Modify the roadway segment to
accommodate increase from a
two-lane facility to a four-lane
facility.
The recommended improvements shall be
implemented through participation in the TSMI fee
program, Fresno Major Street Impact Fee
Program, and/or Regional Transportation Impact
Fee Program by paying the applicable fees in
place at the time of development, or through an
alternative method acceptable to the City
230286
23 TRA-2: The Applicant shall pay the City of Fresno
for their Fair Share portion of intersection
improvements in order to maintain or improve the
operational level of service for the intersections
listed:
o DeWolf Avenue / McKinely Avenue: 0.62%
o Leonard Avenue / McKinely Avenue: 0.29%
o Fowler Avenue / Olive Avenue: 1.86%
Prior to issuance of
building permit Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
TRA-3: The Project shall implement traffic calming
measures at 25% of the intersections (three
intersections) within the Project site. Hornet
Avenue at Peralta Way, Hornet Avenue at
University Avenue and Hornet Avenue at Normal
Avenue shall implement traffic calming measures.
The selected traffic calming measure provides for
the development of roundabouts at the identified
intersections. Traffic calming measures shall be
designed and developed in accordance with City of
Fresno development standards
Prior to issuance of grading
or building permit Project Developer
Planning and
Development
Department /
Public Works
Department
XVIII. TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Implementation of CUL-1, 2, and 3.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no significant impacts to Utilities and Services Systems.
XX. WILDFIRE
There are no significant impacts to Wildfire.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of AES-1 and AES- 2; BIO-1 through BIO-7; CUL-1 through CUL- 3; GEO-1; NSE-1; and TRA-1 through TRA-3. 230286
24 CITY OF FRESNO, COUNTY OF FRESNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 6502 N88°58‘00”E 306.16’ -715,.
l 641,2*
O
X
276‘±
,20
+. I
< ■8” W*
■8" SS:
2 /
1 *Y
,01 b.
I (345
X
A1O 88 ’±
o. y
P L=30’±
X11. 1 o
*
JH
/166
*
1+3
1 , 65
HH o X
X
60 *
(O 1‘ PE 3 1‘ PE O
$ 1
36‘± 1‘PE. 100‘±
/16
4 714 - 3 O 1 .H O. V1 w 10’ PUE 10’ PUE^\
N/
\ O. BUILD
O '
X
X
I / 63
* 4
BUILD ‘X
6 —, 6,000 SFy H
I
O 2P 3
BUILD CI
I.
i
X
0 17
I y X’ d 1OO’± wo’±
( H 60 BUILD —
X
y 1’ PE LO
6‘±
1OO’± W
1’ PE
I
(O
D) s ) IO
s, ■
87’±
tso As 50’
I
X
10’ PUE LO 100’ ± 100’±
ll
3 — g‘
x
P 100’±
100’± Ip
1Zl
s y
.+ A
co
X----------- -X x
53 00
$
X
LO
'I,
: I
1OO’± 1OO’±
I k
2. -X- X X- — X------------ X------------ x— -x- V co x X
& J
\ 100’± X 75 ’± .1 88’± 1
V
===== AAAAAAAA6444AA4
t 1
*******
LO * I
£
O
3 11
Q+8” SSLO
1OO’±
-------- 8” W- — I
I % 874
/ I 1OO’± 53’± 6O’±
$
=47 ± 25
L=11’± —
O co
% I I
100’± T
1OO’± IS
C 68
X
r PE 8,950 SF
:H
Z 65 ’± 1
60 ’±
61'+
: —10‘ PUE II►
63'4
30'± 1OO’±
100’±
6O’± 60 ’± 7O’± ad
A ()
9% Q
L=88’± o%
2 X
4=54+_ ,
'-^.8’+ 7 — — __
O. _1 R=1512’
7 ■ o' —=8" SS=— O
L=60‘A L=43’± 19’± 60’± 60’± 51 ’±
LO *
F8" SS—
X
O
% L=43’± -=O E NORMAL AVENUE • 0 L=52’± ^—8" w- ^.=1000’ 0 I I aloY L -------8” SS ———
o LO
L=52
r N ± N89'15’41"W 190.10’
X
TuQ 7—— - - _ ^52’± 1‘ PE “==
► P
L=52‘4 L=4y± 10’ PUE % 48’± 50’ ± 30’±
00 X. I
L=20’±
47 46 :H
5,426 SF 2 45 HH
5,332 SF 8 44 :H O
:H 42 5,279 SF 8
8 5,294 SF 50’
I
+ !
Lu to I
LOS S ► I 5L 55’±
52’±
52 ’± 10’ PUE
52’±
I 52’±
51 ’± 55’± 59’± 50 ’± 50’±
I s
|Zl 1
•
I
I
33 H
34 5,130 SF X
4,940 SFu
D
CL
X L=4’±~i
L=43’± 1’ PE 1’ PE O
_ ~L=52’±
L^48^± L=18’±
7 J^5_2’±
^L=35’± 16’± 51’±
1 50’±
43’± X .48jk_ 32’±
---------'8” SS--=
R=1256’ 3 4------ ~ <
LO *
~~8” W--- —-^8’’ SS-=-
X O ° \
-8’’ SS- 3*
R=744’
X
----------8” W----------- X
----- ------ -M-
-8” W
I - 3 - L
O
L
O LO
HH.
00°
33‘±
L=7 14
cn
•CO*OQ
TEMP
BASIN
21,815 SF
$3
co2
J
l
I
I
I
E CARMALEE LANE
N88'58’00"E 275.73'
O 0
Z
O) O.
£
\
Q0Y.
I
O
st
N36*11‘38"W 19.70'
H
00 i
H
o
O
C I
25'
*
HH
o
05 * 55
8,049 SF
Ui CL
H
L
o
L
%
9 O)o O 2
79 II
58^
7,165 SF a
r
iii
67 10,221 SF
25’
*
ooco
H
CH
CO
O)
*
.0)
HH
1 LO
H
)
+I
o
31 5,261 SF
N x
16 1
+1
io.
OCX
H
1 84/77
6,000 SF
H
O
25’
*
d
H
1 JH
O CO
+1
O
CO
+1
O
CO
:H
O CO
85 6,775 SF
39 4,869 SF
JH
O CO
29 5,526 SF
49 7,028 SF
50 6,000 SF
H
O CO
32 5,307 SF
65 6,000 SF
36 5,683 SF
HH
O CO
79 7,288 SF
83 6,000 SF
H
o
O)
H
LO
O
+1
g
JH
co
co
CN C
3 CN u
9$
O
O
2 25'
*
L2
*o
40 4,850 SF
78 6,929 SF
JH
O
CO
$
O CO
70 6,000 SF
66 5,950 SF
80 7,323 SF
81 6,000 SF
82 6,000 SF
38 4,864 SF
JH
O
CO
59 8,608 SF
73 6,674 SF
60 6,432 SF
JH
O CO
#
cn
d
CD
JH O
CO
JH
O
co
JH
O
co
1 o
H
O
O
76 6,000 SF
HH
O co
H
co
41 5,683 SF
Ui 2
\
1 JH
O
CO
6 JH
O O
H
O O
54 6,000 SF :
zo
O
d
o 37
4,850 SF
cn
JH
o
71 6,432 SF
30 5,189 SF
HHCO
_ _L~46^
L=6’±~~ —
74 I
6,762 SF
35 5,267 SF
HH
O O
LO *
CN
JH
O O
52 6,000 SF
:H
O
$
O O
J
O
T
%
d
72 6,597 SF
75 6,480 SF
48 5,674 SF
II
+
•oo•co
$
$
57 A
6,000 SF
co * CN
77 6,000 SF
I
I
I
/
51 6,000 SF
X
I
o
I
?
10’ PUE
T
Lu
D
f
LU
D
CL
4*°
fl .
+
o
X
. XE WELDON AVENUE
N89‘39'41”W 236.76" T
O
T
S
1 I
4-
o
A
—
(350^ 8
------8” w-------
cn C)
$
00 ()
co
8 00
—
x~
61 S
9t
149 SF
° 3 AQ
A
X
CO
oo ooLU
9o
N
O O 2
I
9 S
O
2 33 I
I
=
6,000 SF R°
I is
56 7,872 SF
43 5,177 SF
Al ’ 5 <4
64 6,000 SF
I
I
49 %
A
pU
&
$ ''
8 69
j 6,157 SF
T
*
8 00
s
Isi <
I Di l । Q
v8°
#
O
16%
YYY*YYY*v“v*“VVVVVVV
81 ±
III
E UNIVERSITY AVENUE
N89’15’41“W 313.55’
(
co
8 oo
39*
r
24±1628%
1----- —s - - 80
LO
L
9 o
N
O
O
2 50
X
I
X
25’
*
I
—
O (
I Z
207
62 8 52/ 6,549 SF
PARK 3
11,376 SF N
I D
Z
S <KI Q
Ul
+1 5
co Q co ,
-XX
1 H
2io ,0
1 50’
8122
-H o C
1 4
II
+O col
=
8 00
1 25"
*
I
J
co
l
I
O.
X
83 O t
Pt.NG6,
\ —
1 *
30 0o5%
.H
o
Y
l m I
D
I Z I
1 M
[r
O
1 2 I
S
I Z
8 oo
+2
io: oo<
Y2
C1 1
X
L
25‘_
♦
yy /
i
-------8” W--------k »
2 I Ztuis
7a-44
J J4
L2
8 I Z 1 oi
I OX
1K
B”G“50
10’ PUE— < 1 4
BUILD
""
00 3
I
x
25’
*
I
, ’ § 100’±
10’ PUE
II
+
Lu2
L o CL —
H
LO ►00
8-
oo
O D)L
9 o
CXI
OO ) 2
9%
N78;48788 6
72.49 —
SU
o
N _ 60
HH
8 1
I
// 9/
A >
I
I
I
rx
_____ .................................... _
=..............................................—
w
X
IX
I
I
•s*
2 IsI < I Qi I «
29 i Z I —
O
79I a
E
Qi
5,390 SF 3
L
I
-------- LO *---------
----------------CXI ------------------
X
IX
x
1 REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO, UNINCORPORATED AREA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
I
APN: 310-052-27
NOTES
ADDRESS: 7298 EAST McKINLEY AVENUE, FRESNO CA 93737
7. I
OUTLOT SCHEDULE
OUTLOTS A, B TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FRESNO FOR PUBLIC LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PURPOSESOUTLOTS C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J TO BE CONVEYED TO AND MANAGED BY A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONPARK & TRAIL
UTILITY INFORMATION
26 RECORD OWNER SUBDIVIDER LAND SURVEYOR
LEGEND
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES
CENTERLINESECTION LINE
MAP BOUNDARY
(X’)
EX, (E), OR EXISTING
[
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCEEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CULVERT
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINEEXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINEEXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING SERVICE POLE (SS)
EXISTING TOE OF SLOPEEXISTING TOP OF SLOPE
EXISTING TREE
--(W)-- EXISTING WATER LINE. APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON CITY OF FRESNO GIS
I EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING WELL
X EXISTING WIRE FENCE
□ EXISTING WOOD FENCE
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTIONPROPOSED LOT LINES
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
I PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
PROPOSED 6FT TALL BLOCK WALLPROPOSED MANHOLE, SEWERPROPOSED DRAINAGE INLET \
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
*
X’
(P), OR PROPOSED
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA RELINQUISHMENT OF DIRECT ACCESS RIGHTS BY:
N
50’ 0’ 50’
SCALE: 1 ”= 50’
(OE)
(OT)
EXISTING SEWER LINE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON CITY OF FRESNO GISEXISTING STORM DRAIN DROP INLET
PROPOSED MANHOLE, STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED WATER MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED CITY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION -------- (SS)---------
-------- (SD)---------
-------- (W)----------
TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FRESNO FOR OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN, LANDSCAPE ANDIRRIGATION PURPOSES LOTS 20 & 21 OF THE SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EASE, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDINGTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
13.14.15.16.17. BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 21 WITH A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 351.00 FEETNORTH OF, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, WHICH POINT BEARS NORTH 0'01’01” EAST ADISTANCE OF 350.01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 89'35’29”WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 661.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE WITH THE WEST LINEOF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 21: THENCE NORTH 0'00’35” EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 21 A DISTANCEOF 886.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'26’58” WEST A DISTANCE OF 306.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57'15’00” WEST A DISTANCE OF 216.62 FEET;THENCE NORTH 35'49’38” WEST A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79'18’49” WEST A DISTANCE OF 72.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THEWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE NORTH 0'00’10” EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20, A DISTANCE OF 141.69 FEET TO THENORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE SOUTH 89'38’57” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 20 AND 21 A DISTANCE OF 1323.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0'01’01” WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 21 A DISTANCE OF 973.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10.11.12. ।
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 21 AS DEEDED TO FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1990, AS DOCUMENT No. 90018737, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
GAS AND ELECTRIC:PACIFIC GAS ANDELECTRIC COMPANY650 ’O’ STREETFRESNO, CA 93721PHONE: 800- 743-5000 DE YOUNG PROPERTIES677 WEST PALMDON AVESUITE 208
FRESNO, CA 93704(559) 435-0900
VINCENT G. ZANINOVICH, JR. ET AL7298 EAST McKINLEY AVENUEFRESNO, CA 93737 ANTONIO S. WESTERLUND, PLS, CFedS601 POLLASKY AVESUITE 301CLOVIS, CA 93612(559)449-2400 EXISTING ZONING, LAND USE: AE20 (EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE, 20-ACRE MINIMUM) (FRESNO COUNTY)EXISTING LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING, LAND USE: RS-5, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALSITE AREA: 24.66 (GROSS) / 11.57 ACRES (NET)NO GRADE DIFFERENTIALS MORE OF MORE THAN 6” IS FORESEEN. ANY GRADE DIFFERENTIALS ACROSS EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES WILL BE MITIGATED PER CITY OF FRESNO REQUIREMENTS.PROPOSED SEWER, WATER, CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STREETLIGHTS, AND STREET PAVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF FRESNO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.ALL STREETS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES.ALL EXISTING WATER LINES, SEWERS, AND STORM DRAINS WILL REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE TO BE REMOVED. WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE TO BE ABANDONED PER CITY AND COUNTY STANDARDS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN UNDERGROUND FEATURES SUCH AS WELLS OR CESSPOOLS WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.THIS SUBDIVISION DESIGN PROVIDES, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, FOR PASSIVE NATURAL HEATING OR COOLING OPPORTUNITIES AND OTHER MEASURES THAT CONSERVE N0N-RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES (35% OF THE TOTAL LOT COUNT WILL HAVE NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION).
THERE ARE NO DUMP SITES ON THIS PROPERTY.WATER SUPPLY AND SEWER SERVICES ARE FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO.
EXISTING SERVICE POLES ALONG McKINLEY AVENUE ARE TO REMAIN.
APPROXIMATELY 111 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBDIVISION.
EXISTING BUILDINGS (BUILD) ARE TO BE REMOVED.
SEWER AND WATER:
CITY OF FRESNO
2600 FRESNO STREETFRESNO, CA 93721PHONE: (559) 621-2489 CABLE TELEVISION:COMCAST2441 NORTH GROVEINDUSTRIAL DRIVEFRESNO, CA 93727PHONE: (559) 455-4221 |
STORM DRAIN:FRESNO METROPOLITANFLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT5469 EAST OLIVE AVENUEFRESNO, CA 93725 PHONE: (559) 456-3292
TELEPHONE:AT&T CALIFORNIA5555 EAST OLIVE AVENUE,RM. E-100-DEFRESNO, CA 93762PHONE: (559) 454-3778 QK
WWW.QKINC.COM
1-800-955-7599
BAKERSFIELD, CLOVIS, HANFORD, MERCED, PORTERVILLE, VISALIA 1 I
■
//////I-----------o-------------------------—344)___ _
30 0o5%
SEE SHEET 2
o
pU
9?
N
61 pU
30 0o6%
NOVEMBER 2024
E CLINTON AVENUE
T
N 2
2 Ly
U
2 2 MILL DITCH
SUBJECT PROPERTY
N JANICE AVE
MILL
L
L
CL MILL DITCH
2 2
E McKINLEY AVENUE
E PERALTA
AVENUE
E NORMAL
AVENUE
E YALE
AVENUE
Q
5 Q
Q 5
Q
E BERKELEY
AVENUE
Q 8
ct
2 (
Ul L
0)
2 E ADENA AVE
E VASSAR
AVE
E UNIVERSITY
AVENUE
E ADENA AVE
E VASSAR
AVE
Ul2
DITCH
E WELDON AVENUE
2 O
on 5on
2§ 5 LU 2
2 St
C
8 CL
2 — L
K
VICINITY MAP
N
NOT TO SCALE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
i
I
\
\
\
\
I I I I
I
I
on
on
I
|
I
I
co
I
TRACT 5434
RS-4
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
co
I
I
I
N TEMPERANCE AVENUE
CITY OF FRESNO, COUNTY OF FRESNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 6502 -8” SS- — --
- 8" w — 4---
— 8 SS-— 8” WN7
R=1256'
--------8” SS==
~~8" W--- —-^8" SS-=-
7 X
L=50'± L=43‘± ---------------P4—
L=48
r % ±
L=38
r±
12 ’±
1’ PE\^. o
10’ PUE
I
50 f
1 co.
O
51 ‘± 55 ‘±
60‘± 50‘±
10 5,764 SE
H
O Pg
D) l
,00
oo
AX L=48‘± L=38'± 12’±
5=8" SS----=
R=1000’
8” w
----
L=56’±
L=50
r± — _=7±L=34-— —L=50‘£
TEMP
BASIN
0 0)
Lu
%
! oo O 2
26 6,302 SF
$
8 JH
O
L
JH
Oy
O
:H
N
O
H
N) O
HH oy
O
28 5,247 SF
25'
*
25 5,162 SF
27 5,457 SF
:H
s
O
d
12 5,141 SF
LO
O
u
9 8 O
2 11
5,961 SF
9 5,209 SF
^2'±
I L=50’±
—
S:
0 o
H► 05
HH1
K.
O)4
— —8” w— _
R=744’
2 % *'
l
o
O.
£
L=46
>±
44. 25’
*
I
=
a
co
i
R=1000’
~ 8’’ SS^-^=.
SCL
o
I Z1 W |>
। 2
1g
18Im I z
। •)I D
—1‘ PE
: —10‘ PUE
DENSE HEDGES
JH 7
2?O 4,874 SF
R
50 ’± 50 '± 50 ’± 50 ’±
404’ ±
ae
—X X RX
A X
co= -
SD Dl{346lf
=
-16" SS--------
16” SS
—16" W— 16” W -
(OE)- (OE)- (OE)-
56’±
1O’±
OUTLOT A
4,089 SF
JH io 05
HH
"co
N)
JH
O
05 JH
CO 00
1 o
1 6
4,612 SF
5 4,378 SF
4 4,266 SF
8 5,620 SF
\
Q-
.0)
TEMP
BASIN
15,106 SF
\
30' EXISTING ROW PER (306 OR 265)
—------- (345)^= (OE)-
(0E)— N 1/4 COR SEC 35,^ ’
%
Co T13S, R21Et M.D.B.&M.
*
-------- (SS)---------
-------- (SD)---------
2) ----- (w)------
3 V
PROPOSED MANHOLE, STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED WATER MAIN, SIZE AS NOTEDPROPOSED CITY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 2so
50-862
N89’15’41"W 1323.37’ O PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
\
36 37 38 PARK
N OUTLOT SCHEDULE
OUTLOTS A, B TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FRESNO FOR PUBLIC LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PURPOSES
N OUTLOTS C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J TO BE CONVEYED TO AND MANAGED BY A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION sl s PARK & TRAIL LO *
O
oo O -8" SS-
| L s X PP ,26 1
55' ± ^50’± 5O’± 50' ± 55’± 48 H
’TT R° % LEGEND
3 ■
X
50’ O N89'15’41”W 661.72’
H \
LO I H )
y
5,665 SF X 178’± O
1 53± 53’± r
e3o*i
y 7
% 65’± 30 ’±- - PE 62’± 62 '± N (X’)
I A 2I E
■ - 8” SS— -• 63’± 40 ’± FAIRFAX AVENUE ~ 18'± EX, (E), OR 8 ii
10’ PUE^]
-10’ PUE
O _
* -I- _N89^54iyi/_L940(y_________________ M) 106 98 97
— o’± =^^.8" W- L=4’± O
7 1,908 SF 2,187 SF 96 i
J
_ D -2,146_S1
tr
O K
0 VVVVV WVVVYVYYYYYYYYYYYvv VVVVYV 10‘ PUE 17’ ± Rl
O l 2,779 SF
VVVV’ X
41 ’± 83’± 50 '±
I L=7’±-i
| 53’± 53’± |
i
V 50 ’± 50' ± 50' ± 55‘± 60 ’± P 20'± 63'± JH W PUE
l+ L=7(± — — -8” W —
88 105
|:H L=30± -8” W —
J 11,908 SF
I
42’ x
+ I
1 ||: ।
2 x
r). N
2,105 SF1
|
| R=200 R=200 1 2
1 | 53’± 53’± | L=8‘± I
3 r L=5’± L=5’± 53’± 10' PUE L=9'± L=7’±
I Z a
# t L=40‘± 32 ’±
3‘ 14 95 ’± k 108 H aX 47'± L=5 ±
l I
8,
- —1
PE
00 JH 2,068 SFl l 53’+
M)
L=4'± L=4’±
AAAAAAAAAAA 5,199 SF Tri r I 58 ’±
L=24’±
Q I 1 18’± =18’± N <
704 776 05 - Z
I \ 53’± |
1 \ AC ’
O
Ly
CL E 2,088 SF — -(ss)- —
ILE
X
< 10‘ PUE
X
L=4’± 109 | 53’± Z 1‘ PE 58'±
LO
53’± | 551 4 | 50 ‘± 50’ ± 50' ± 55’± 48’±
J
86’± H| 702 | + |H|
00 L=8’± 117
1,908 SF|
3'± 15’± 15’± I
LO * 53’±
| 2,088 SF 30’± L=23'±
I I
O innnnnn 5’± 53’± 1' PE\-^--' 58’± H % 47’±
a ■ i
■8” SS- 110
05 s
64 22 ’± s
.4’..
/ /
U I O
)
{ L=19’± L=5’±
=77#
L=7’± L=22'± L=8’± L=10’±
2 X --------8” W--------- — -(W)- — E PERALTA =77‘± 32‘± O 7’: > /
00 48' ± R=200‘ N89‘15’41”W 93.63’ 43’± 26'± L
25’ =28
", *
3% L=4’±
R=200.
C 25’ ■8" SSUl S3 --- - ___ __
* 50’ ■8" W- L=44‘± L=3’± R L=4’± -8" W----------- I I
*/
.5, V .
40’ ± 40 ’± 18’±
x
40’± 40 ‘± 17’± 18’±
L=4’± '41’± I
O O ^22’±
3 L=12’± L He .H CL
4,250 SF- a:
'~L=13’± N 2,334 SF 12
I 777 772 773 774 775 133 1 778
2,520 SF 2,520 SF 2,520 1^12,683 SF I
2 2’:
50'± 50 ’± 56’± 1 75 ’± 78’± 40’± 40’ ± 40’ ± \ I + J | 43’± 41 ’± 67’± 67’± 2 V|*
END OF 1‘ DA DRAIN PPE
tn
TO1 7g
(345 ' — T
k
-PADDLE
X
+ (OT)
E MCKINLEY AVENUE —
—(P) CURB & GUTTER / CO’
OUTLOT J
3,902 SF .
TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FRESNO FOR OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN, LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION PURPOSES
(OE)
(OT)
58 ’±
' 14’4
12‘ WIDE DIRT
DRMEWIAY
13. 14.
15.16. 17.
OUTLOT B
9,334 SF
slII
TRAIL
1.33 ACRES
()
CO
T
1 I
.I4
25’
*
D) O
&
30 ‘±
3’±-
D)O
co
N)
O
O
CO
co
OUTLOT F
1,767 SF
C.
w
co
N)
S
CO
N)
JH£
OUTLOT G
2,228 SF
E PERALTA WAY
N89‘15’41”W~357.55’
$
b
O
2 OUTLOT H
1,038 SF
$
0 O2
1 •
13 12
0 Z
OUTLOT 1
882 SF
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINESCENTERLINESECTION LINE
MAP BOUNDARY
X
8 O 2
727
5,348 SF
123
5,199 SF
101
1,908 SF
H00
$ os
THERE ARE NO DUMP SITES ON THIS PROPERTY.
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWER SERVICES ARE FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO.
EXISTING SERVICE POLES ALONG McKINLEY AVENUE ARE TO REMAIN.
APPROXIMATELY 111 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBDIVISION.EXISTING BUILDINGS (BUILD) ARE TO BE REMOVED.
EXISTINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCEEXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CULVERTEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINEEXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING SERVICE POLEEXISTING SEWER LINE, APPROXIMATE LOCATIONBASED ON CITY OF FRESNO GISEXISTING STORM DRAIN DROP INLET EXISTING TOE OF SLOPEEXISTING TOP OF SLOPEEXISTING TREEEXISTING WATER LINE. APPROXIMATE LOCATION
BASED ON CITY OF FRESNO GIS
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING WELLEXISTING WIRE FENCEEXISTING WOOD FENCE
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTIONPROPOSED LOT LINESPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAYPROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT PROPOSED 6FT TALL BLOCK WALLPROPOSED MANHOLE. SEWERPROPOSED DRAINAGE INLET :HLOOO
2 * 2,705
,,0404
720
3,528 SF
-H
oo
HH
CO 00
JH O
CO
HH
£
.O
119
2,581 SF
122
3,498 SF
JH
COLO
HCO
N)
H
00 LO
H
CO
N)
JH
OCXI
CD
C —
O
CXI
O O 2
J
O
LO
H
to
JH co
N)
:H
co
H
io
JH co
CXI
N)
Lu
o
JH
N) co
§ I
9 I
N I
o I
H
O
00 H
1 co
Lu2
-H
O
#3
O5<
H
1 CO
H
o
N
H
N CO
H
CO
CO
99 1,908 SF
10’ PUE^
&
+1
O
*y
H
O M)
<0 00 00
u
05 HH
1 to
H
<0M)
-H
O 20
5,665 SF
H
i
O
Lu
05 H
00 <0
H
1 O
HH 1
O
+1N)
O
%
3 D)O
H
1 O
d
+1co
LO D)
J
o
N
O
CXI
O O 2
a
00 H
O
CO
95 3,040 SF
18 6,082 SF
19 6,082 SF
89 7,826 SF
JH
<0M)
8 O
2 90
4,260 SF
i 2
P)2%
H
To
KENMORE AVENUE
N89‘15’41”W 134.85~
22 5,150 SF
16 5,150 SF
T PE
— W PUE
92 4,605 SF
91 4,642 SF
Y
' 86
5,157 SF
^ OUTLOT
3 2,876 SF
kJ
87 4,846 SF
a
O
co
HH
co
IT
+1
8 3
A
4 ",
—
a
00 II
+|
O CNI
75 5,750 SF
■L=8’±
14’±
10 00
A
+ I
3|
I +
3 27
5,750 SF
17 5,665 SF
D
-L=4’±,
| 53’±
L=8’±
30’
RESERVATION
30’ ±
L=4’±i
l 3‘±
'-L=4’±
rL=4’±
% I
28-----
LO * - C
----------8" W-------
L=61±
O .
O
. 2
r
L=4’±
42’
—1—
E UNIVERSITY AVENUE
N89’15’41’’W 313.55'
$
$
iS
a
$
AVENUE .
N89‘15’41"W 103.47’
$H2
O5<
•24
T. %2\
4,250 SF
1,908 SF
•I/’ PE
W’ PUE^\ :
1’ PE\^
7 5,030 SF
—8* • —8“ W-—
pU
, 1PE. W PUE^, <
/HH HHo
N)
P
6 I
CXI LO
O
^L=8’±
L=9
’±
, L=54’± -
L=8±
R=200’
.I
o
&
Lu
<35
I
co co
% I
2 2 V
00 1
E CURRAN AVENUE
F N89‘15’41”W 94.02'
— FOR ACCESS
PER
I (12 OR 555)
00 1
HH
gh
- 05
O —
C",
1 on co
I
I H 3 =
1 2 6
LIE >
5 Z
S
R
w
Q —
2£
O
0 Z
. 70317,908 SF
1 §
। 2
IsI <I &
i In)1 Q
I
$
()
0)
a
00 Is
o
0054 30
to to
a
00 1
2 M
*
88 5,074 SF
P
67%
2 Ie
25’
*
I I
I '
=
2 I z
(
+1
88 O —+
2b
O
2 _31^_______
N89'15’41’W
• -40.30’ .
W O3 NW o
1 00 |
L=22’±
-6‘±
L=26’± 24’ ±
AAAAAA AAAAAA
H o
N .10 0
l
w
IB12
0 700 ; co.
7,908 SF I Pl
-8" SS- -8
i±O)
(344)-
—
107 । bl 1 |
1 S
SF N
U%48
•
zOUTLOT C
(P: (5±- d
—
14’±
2,173 SF |
1’ PE'-
L=5’±
L=5’±~
I
I J
al+ I &
AAAAAAAAAAA A
2’±
53’±
■14’±
TX
I
ADDRESS: 7298 EAST McKINLEY AVENUE, FRESNO CA 93737
7. 1.2.3.
4. 5.
6.8. 9.10.11.12.
EXISTING ZONING, LAND USE: AE20 (EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE, 20-ACRE MINIMUM) (FRESNO COUNTY)EXISTING LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING, LAND USE: RS-5, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALSITE AREA: 24.66 (GROSS) / 11.57 ACRES (NET)NO GRADE DIFFERENTIALS MORE OF MORE THAN 6” IS FORESEEN. ANY GRADE DIFFERENTIALS ACROSS EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES WILL BE MITIGATED PER CITY OF FRESNO REQUIREMENTS.PROPOSED SEWER, WATER, CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STREETLIGHTS, AND STREET PAVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY OFFRESNO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.ALL STREETS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES.
ALL EXISTING WATER LINES, SEWERS, AND STORM DRAINS WILL REMAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE TO BE REMOVED. WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE TO BE ABANDONED PER CITY AND COUNTY STANDARDS.THERE ARE NO KNOWN UNDERGROUND FEATURES SUCH AS WELLS OR CESSPOOLS WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.THIS SUBDIVISION DESIGN PROVIDES, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, FOR PASSIVE NATURAL HEATING OR COOLING OPPORTUNITIES AND OTHER MEASURES THAT CONSERVE N0N-RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES (35% OF THE TOTAL LOT COUNT WILL HAVE NORTH-SOUTH 30 29
<13
5,665 SF
H
1 O
55 ±
? I31
E McKINLEY AVENUE
VICINITY MAP
N
NOT TO SCALE
X
XL
34 ■ ?
SEE SHEET 1
•
1 44
• %3
\35
s2
HH
LO 00
L I S —| E ADENA AVE
> 2
2 2 MILL DITCH
N JANICE AVE
MILL
L
Lu
MILL DITCH
2 E PERALTA
AVENUE
E NORMAL
AVENUE
E YALE
AVENUE
Q
5 <2
Q S
Q
E BERKELEY
AVENUE
Q
8 22
05Lu Lu
2 O
CO CO
2 E UNIVERSITY
AVENUE
E ADENA AVE
E VASSAR
AVE
E VASSAR
AVE
Lu 2
2 5
8 co
2 DITCH
£ WELDON AVENUE
C8 or2
—
2 —
SUBJECT PROPERTY _ _______________ ___________
N (P), OR PROPOSED
0V
61 90 A/V
APN: 310-052-27
NOTES
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 21 WITH A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 351.00 FEET NORTH OF, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, WHICH POINT BEARS NORTH 0’01’01" EAST ADISTANCE OF 350.01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 89‘35’29” WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 661.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 21: THENCE NORTH 0’00’35” EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 21 A DISTANCEOF 886.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89’26’58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 306.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57’15’00” WEST A DISTANCE OF 216.62 FEET;THENCE NORTH 35’49’38” WEST A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79’18’49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 72.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE NORTH 0’00’ 10" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20, A DISTANCE OF 141.69 FEET TO THENORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE SOUTH 89’38’57" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 20 AND 21 A DISTANCE OF 1323.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0’01’01" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 21 A DISTANCE OF 973.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
NOVEMBER 2024
E CLINTON AVENUE
2,525 SH|:
L=4’±
J
17’± 18’±
41 ’± Ls
30 ’± 65’±
2417
_______(345)
LINE SEC 35, T13S, R21E, M.D.B.&M.
4O’±
806 ’±
-L=4’±
30’±
C3‘±
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA RELINQUISHMENT OF DIRECT ACCESS RIGHTS 33 X
X
X
I
50’ 0 50
RECORD OWNER SUBDIVIDER LAND SURVEYOR UTILITY INFORMATION SCALE: 1 "= 50’
GAS AND ELECTRIC: BY:PACIFIC GAS ANDELECTRIC COMPANY650 ’0’ STREETFRESNO, CA 93721PHONE: 800- 743-5000 DE YOUNG PROPERTIES677 WEST PALMDON AVESUITE 208FRESNO, CA 93704(559) 435-0900 ANTONIO S. WESTERLUND, PLS, CFedS601 POLLASKY AVESUITE 301CLOVIS, CA 93612 (559)449-2400
SEWER AND WATER:CITY OF FRESNO
2600 FRESNO STREETFRESNO, CA 93721PHONE: (559) 621-2489 VINCENT G. ZANINOVICH, JR. ET AL7298 EAST McKINLEY AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93737
CABLE TELEVISION:COMCAST
2441 NORTH GROVEINDUSTRIAL DRIVEFRESNO, CA 93727PHONE: (559) 455-4221 TELEPHONE:AT&T CALIFORNIA5555 EAST OLIVE AVENUE,RM. E-100-DEFRESNO, CA 93762PHONE: (559) 454-3778 STORM DRAIN:FRESNO METROPOLITAN
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT5469 EAST OLIVE AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93725PHONE: (559) 456-3292 QK
WWW.QKINC.COM
1-800-955-7599
BAKERSFIELD, CLOVIS, HANFORD, MERCED, PORTERVILLE, VISALIA N
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO, UNINCORPORATED AREA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOTS 20 & 21 OF THE SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EASE, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDINGTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 21 AS DEEDED TO FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1990, AS DOCUMENT No. 90018737, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -----------------------------------S » W N JANICE AVENUE „ ------------------------------------- 8 SS \ \
\ \
TRACT 5434
RS-4
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
N TEMPERANCE AVENUE
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
BLOSSOM VIEW SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
MAY 2025
E WELDON AVE "
Q <
1 Z
thtf -=emrs*=—I
J.
—=O I Q
-LU
a or
E 3
7 t
I
I
I
-E Jv 121-1 Sveiel- ‘ girmtitit. Irmmmi
as "ee jtedw rndt
9 -
2 i ;
J
y A
4 1
P
15 at
DPr • el SB it
..
' " *
N
] 2 0
U
Feet
r \
: J
1 I
I
I
f
.5
Vil w • 1 “
t j
mmmmmmm
(Bpetttyes • t s stt Rati* +2000999 oy*jtve evstunseusteeses %
llll’lillliii Pl it IRS I H 1 I ll' Hl 1
i by
ll i
ll Ji ll '!1
•I! J i I i j h i I k,
in |।
j
it
♦ *
iiilli ith■ tevnree
i
*
A ♦
=
4 ■
C -1 Annexation Area Only
City Limits
L.7 Project Site
J
Er
500
nht
QHled "sene oerprene eelwegeu-gas
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
BLOSSOM VIEW SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Prepared for:
Mike Ross
3232 Rio Miranda Drive, Ste B2
Fresno, CA 93308
Contact Person: Mike Ross
Phone: (661) 747-3972
Consultant:
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301
Clovis, CA 93612
Contact: Ernie Escobedo
Phone: (559) 449-2400
Fax: (559) 733-7821
May 2025
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.
Unauthorized use prohibited.
Project #230286
Q
Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025 Page i
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ iv SECTION 1 - Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1-1 SECTION 2 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 - Purpose...........................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 - General Project Description...................................................................................................................2-1 SECTION 3 - Setting .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 - Air Quality Standards ...............................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 - Existing Air Quality....................................................................................................................................3-5
3.2.1 - Ozone (O3)...................................................................................................................................3-6
3.2.2 - Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) .......................................................3-6
3.2.3 - Carbon Monoxide (CO)..........................................................................................................3-7
3.2.4 - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons .................................................................3-7
3.2.5 - Sulfur Dioxide............................................................................................................................3-7
3.2.6 - Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate.....................................................................................3-8
3.3 - Climate ............................................................................................................................................................3-8
3.4 - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................3-9
3.4.1 - Global Climate Change...........................................................................................................3-9
3.4.2 - Effects of Global Climate Change....................................................................................3-12
3.4.3 - Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues ..................................................................3-13 SECTION 4 - Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 - Significance Criteria ..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 - Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA 4-1
4.1.2 - Threshold for Ambient Air Quality Impacts.................................................................4-2
4.1.3 - Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants......................................................................4-2
4.1.4 - Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance ...................................................4-3
4.2 - Project Related Emissions......................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.1 - Short-Term Emissions ...........................................................................................................4-5
4.2.2 - Long-Term Operational Emissions ..................................................................................4-7
4.3 - Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................4-8
4.4 - Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Class 1 Areas ............................................................4-9
4.5 - Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide ......................................................................................4-9
4.6 - Predicted Health Impacts ....................................................................................................................4-10
4.7 - Potential Impacts from Valley Fever...............................................................................................4-12
4.8 - Potential Impacts from Asbestos......................................................................................................4-13
4.9 - Odor Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................................................................4-13 Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025 Page ii
4.10 - Impacts to Ambient Air Quality......................................................................................................4-14
4.11 - Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ...............................................................4-14 SECTION 5 - Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 - Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts........................................................................................5-1
5.2 - Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts...............................................................................................5-3
5.3 - Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants ...............................................................................................5-3
5.4 - Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources...............................................................5-3 SECTION 6 - Consistency with the Air Quality Attainment Plan .................................................... 6-1
6.1 - Required Evaluation Guidelines ..........................................................................................................6-1
6.2 - Consistency with the Fresno Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis..6- 2 SECTION 7 - Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures .......................................................... 7-1
7.1 - Applicable PM10 Reduction Measures ...............................................................................................7-1
7.2 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust........................................................7-2
7.3 - Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust........................................................7-2 SECTION 8 - Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 8-1 SECTION 9 - References .................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data
Appendix B – Project Emission Calculations
Appendix C – Health Risk Assessment Modeling Files (Electronic) List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..........................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Location..............................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3 Project Site Topography .............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 3-1 CARB Monitoring Network........................................................................................................3-4 Figure 6-1 City of Fresno Zoning ...................................................................................................................6-3 List of Tables
Table 3-1 Federal and California Standards 3-2
Table 3-2 SJVAB Attainment Status 3-3
Table 3-3 Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data in Project Area 3-5 Table 3-4 Fresno, California Weather Data 3-9
Table 4-1 SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance 4-2
Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025 Page iii
Table 4-2 Measures of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants 4-3 Table 4-3 Short-Term Project Emissions 4-7
Table 4-4 Post-Project Max Year (Operational Emissions) 4-8 Table 4-5 Sensitive Receptors Located < 1 miles from Project 4-9 Table 4-5 Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP 4-12 Table 4-6 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) 4-14 Table 5-1 Comparative Analysis Based on SJVAB 2020 Inventory 5-2 Table 5-2 Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection – Tons per Year 5-2 Table 5-3 Emission Inventory SJVAB – Fresno County Portion 2025 Estimate Projection – Tons per Year 5-2
Table 5-4 2025 Emissions Projections – Proposed Project, Fresno County and SJVAB 5-3
Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025 Page iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AAQA Ambient Air Quality Analysis
AB Assembly Bill
AERMOD Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plans
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
BACT best available control technology
BAU business as usual
BMCM Bulk Material Control Measures
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalents
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendments
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HI hazard index
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
FresnoCOG FresnoCouncil of Governments
LOS Level of Service
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
MMT CO2e million metric tons of CO2 equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis May 2025 Page v
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NSR New Source Review
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Pb lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers
PMI point of maximum impact
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACM Reasonably Available Control Measures
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
SB Senate Bill
SIL significant impact levels
SIPs State Implementation Plans
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program
USGS United States Geological Survey
VDE visible dust emissions
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Executive Summary
Blossom View Project – Air Quality Impact Analysis February 2025