555822v1
SERVICE AGREEMENT
CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
THIS AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made and entered into, effective on ______________________, by and between the CITY OF FRESNO, a California municipal corporation (City), and Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. (Service Provider).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City desires to obtain California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) professional services for Planning and Development on call CEQA projects (Project); and WHEREAS, the City has established a pre-qualified list of consultants (Service Provider) for development project applicants (Developer) to choose from; and WHEREAS, Service Provider is engaged in the business of furnishing such services as a CEQA environmental professional consultant and hereby represents that it desires to and is professionally and legally capable of performing the services called for by this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Service Provider shall not be compensated by the City, instead the Developer for the Project shall be solely responsible for compensation by the Project’s developer; and
WHEREAS, Service Provider acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to the requirements of Fresno Municipal Code Section 4-107; and WHEREAS, this Agreement will be administered for City by its Planning Development Director (Administrator) or designee.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the covenants, conditions, and premises hereinafter contained to be kept and performed by the respective parties, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Scope of Services. Service Provider shall perform to the satisfaction of City the services described in Exhibit A, including all work incidental to, or necessary to perform, such services even though not specifically described in Exhibit A.
2. Term of Agreement and Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be effective from the date first set forth above (Effective Date) and shall continue in full force and effect through October 30, 2028, with the option of two additional one-year extensions, subject to any earlier termination in accordance with this Agreement.
The services of Service Provider as described in Exhibit A are to commence upon the Effective Date and shall be completed in a sequence assuring expeditious completion, but in any event, all such services shall be completed prior to expiration of this Agreement and in accordance with any performance schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Compensation.
(a) Service Provider’s sole compensation for satisfactory performance of all services required or rendered pursuant to this Agreement and shall not -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
exceed $2,000,000 paid on the basis of the rates set forth in the schedule of fees and expenses contained in Exhibit A . Such fee includes all expenses incurred by Service Provider in performance of the services and are not for appropriations.
(b) Detailed statements shall be rendered monthly for services performed in the preceding month and will be payable in the normal course of City business.
City shall not be obligated to reimburse any expense for which it has not received a detailed invoice with applicable copies of representative and identifiable receipts or records substantiating such expenses. (c) The parties may modify this Agreement to increase or decrease the scope of services or provide for the rendition of services not required by this Agreement, which modification shall include an adjustment to Service Provider’s compensation. Any change in the scope of services must be made by written amendment to the Agreement signed by an authorized representative for each party. Service Provider shall not be entitled to any additional compensation if services are performed prior to a signed written amendment.
4. Termination, Remedies, and Force Majeure.
(a) This Agreement shall terminate without any liab ility of City to Service Provider upon the earlier of : (i) Service Provider’s filing for protection under the federal bankruptcy laws, or any bankruptcy petition or petition for receiver commenced by a third party against Service Provider; (ii) seven calendar days’ prior written notice with or without cause by City to Service Provider; (iii) City’s n on-appropriation of funds sufficient to meet its obligations hereunder during any City fiscal year of this Agreement, or insufficient funding for the Project; or (iv) expiration of this Agreement. (b) Immediately upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement, Service Provider shall (i) immediately stop all work hereunder; (ii) immediately cause any and all of its subcontractors to cease work; and (iii) return to City any and all unearned payments and all properties and materials in the possession of Service Provider that are owned by City. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Service Provider shall be paid compensation for services satisfactorily performed prior to the effective date of termination. Service Provider shall not be paid for any work or services performed or costs incurred which reasonably could have been avoided.
(c) In the event of termination due to failure of Service Provider to satisfactorily perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City may withhold an amount that would otherwise be payable as an offset to, but not in excess of, City’s damages caused by such failure. In no event shall any payment by City pursuant to this Agreement constitute a waiver by City of any breach of this Agreement which may then exist on the part of Service Provider, nor shall such payment impair or prejudice any remedy available to City with respect to the breach.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
(d) Upon any breach of this Agreement by Service Provider, City may (i) exercise any right, remedy (in contract, law or equity), or privilege which may be available to it under applicable laws of the State of California or any other applicable law; (ii) proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of the Agreement; and/or (iii) recover all direct, indirect, consequential, economic and incidental damages for the breach of the Agreement. If it is determined that City improperly terminated this Agreement for default, such termination shall be deemed a termination for convenience.
(e) Service Provider shall provide City with adequate written assurances of future performance, upon Administrator’s request, in the event Service Provider fails to comply with any terms or conditions of this Agreement. (f) Service Provider shall be liable for default unless nonperformance is caused by an occurrence beyond the reasonable control of Service Provider and without its fault or negligence such as, acts of God or the public enemy, acts of City in its contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, unusually severe weather, and delays of common carriers. Service Provider shall notify Administrator in writing as soon as it is reasonably possible after the commencement of any excusable delay, setting forth the full particulars in connection therewith, and shall remedy such occurrence with all reasonable dispatch, and shall promptly give written notice to Administrator of the cessation of such occurrence.
5. Confidential Information and Ownership of Documents. (a) Any reports, information, or other data prepared or assembled by Service Provider pursuant to this Agreement shall not be made available to any individual or organization by Service Provider without the prior written approval of the Administrator. During the term of this Agreement, and thereafter, Service Provider shall not, without the prior written consent of City, disclose to anyone any Confidential Information. The term Confidential Information for the purposes of this Agreement shall include all proprietary and confidential information of City, including but not limited to business plans, marketing plans, financial information, materials, compilations, documents, instruments, models, source or object codes and other information disclosed or submitted, orally, in writing, or by any other medium or media. All Confidential Information shall be and remain confidential and proprietary in City.
(b) Any and all writings and documents prepared or provided by Service Provider pursuant to this Agreement are the property of City at the time of preparation and shall be turned over to City upon expiration or termination of the Agreement. Service Provider shall not permit the reproduction or use thereof by any other person except as otherwise expressly provided herein. (c) If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Service Provider shall cause each subcontractor to also comply with the requirements of this Section 5. -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
(d) This Section 5 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
6. Level of Skill. It is further mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that inasmuch as Service Provider represents to City that Service Provider and its subcontractors, if any, are skilled in the profession and shall perform in accordance with the standards of said industry necessary to perform the services agreed to be done by it under this Agreement, City relies upon the skill of Service Provider and its subcontractors, if any, to do and perform such services in a skillful manner and Service Provider agrees to thus perform the services and require the same of any subcontractors. Therefore, any acceptance of such services by City shall not operate as a release of Service Provider or any subcontractors from said industry and professional standards.
7. Indemnification. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Service Provider shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage) incurred by City, Service Provider or any other person, and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including reasonable attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost to enforce this agreement), arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of performance of this Agreement. Service Provider's obligations under the precedi ng sentence shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers are negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the gro ss negligence, or caused by the willful misconduct, of City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers.
If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, Service Provider shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers in accordance with the terms of the preceding paragraph.
This section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
8. Insurance.
(a) Throughout the life of this Agreement, the Service Provider shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all insurance as required in Exhibit B, which is incorporated into and part of this Agreement, with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated no less than “A-VII” in the Best’s Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) as may be authorized in writing by the City’s Risk Manager or designee at any time and in its sole discretion. The required policies of insurance as stated in Exhibit B shall maintain limits of liability of not less than those amounts stated therein. However, the insurance limits available to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds, shall be the greater of the -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
minimum limits specified therein or the full limit of any insurance proceeds to the named insured.
(b) If at any time during the life of the Agreement or any extension, the Service Provider or any of its subcontractors/sub-Service Providers fail to maintain any required insurance, all services and work under this Agreement shall be discontinued immediately, and all payments due, or that become due, to the Service Provider shall be withheld until insurance is in compliance with the requirements. Any failure to maintain the required insurance shall be sufficient cause for the City to terminate this Agreement. No action taken by the City pursuant to this section shall in any way relieve the Service Provider of its responsibilities under this Agreement. The phrase “fail to maintain any required insurance” shall include, without limitation, notification received by the City that an insurer has commenced proceedings, or has had proceedings commenced against it, indicating that the insurer is insolvent. (c) The fact that insurance is obtained by the Service Provider shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of the Service Provider, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement.
The duty to indemnify the City shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Service Provider. Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of the Service Provider, its principals, officers, agents, employees, persons under the supervision of the Service Provider, vendors, suppliers, invitees, Service Providers, sub-Service Providers, subcontractors, or anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them.
9. Conflict of Interest and Non-Solicitation.
(a) Prior to City’s execution of this Agreement, Service Provider shall complete a City of Fresno conflict of interest disclosure statement in the form as set forth in Exhibit C. During the term of this Agreement, Service Provider shall have the obligation and duty to immediately notify City in writing of any change to the information provided by Service Provider in such statement. (b) Service Provider shall comply, and require its subcontractors to comply, with all applicable (i) professional canons and requirements governing avoidance of impermissible client conflicts; and (ii) federal, state, and local conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, California Government Code Section 1090 et. seq., the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 87100 et. seq.) and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning disclosure and disqualification (2 California Code of Regulations Section 18700 et. seq.). At any time, upon written request of City, Service Provider shall provide a written opinion of its legal counsel and that of any subcontractor that, after a due diligent inquiry, Service Provider and the respective subcontractor(s) are in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Service -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
Provider shall take, and require its subcontractors to take, reasonable steps to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Upon discovery of any facts giving rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, Service Provider shall immediately notify City of these facts in writing.
(c) Consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the City with any portion of the City’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the City. The City entering this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this Project.
Consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Consultant shall cooperate with the City to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this Project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or s pecifications prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.
(d) In performing the work or services to be provided hereunder, Service Provider shall not employ or retain the services of any person while such person either is employed by City or is a member of any City council, commission, board, committee, or similar City body. This requirement may be waived in writing by the City Manager, if no actual or potential conflict is involved.
(e) Service Provider represents and warrants that it has not paid or agreed to pay any compensation, contingent or otherwise, direct or indirect, to solicit, or procure this Agreement or any rights/benefits hereunder. (f) Service Provider and any of its subcontractors shall have no interest, direct or indirect, in any other contract with a third party in connection with this Project unless such interest is in accordance with all applicable law and fully disclosed to and approved by the City Manager, in advance and in writing.
Notwithstanding any approval given by the City Manager under this provision, Service Provider shall remain responsible for complying with Section 9(a), above.
(g) If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the work to be performed or services to be provided under this Agreement, Service Provider shall include the provisions of this Section 9 in each subcontract and require its subcontractors to comply therewith.
(h) This Section 9 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
10. Recycling Program. In the event Service Provider maintains an office or operates a facility(ies), or is required herein to maintain or operate same, within the incorporated limits of the City of Fresno, Service Provider at its sole cost and expense shall:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
(a) Immediately establish and maintain a viable and ongoing recycling program, approved by City’s Solid Waste Management Division, for each office and facility. Literature describing City recycling programs is available from City’s Solid Waste Management Division and by calling City of Fresno Recycling Hotline at (559) 621-1111.
(b) Immediately contact City’s Solid Waste Management Division at (559) 621- 1452 and schedule a free waste audit, and cooperate with such Division in their conduct of the audit for each office and facility. (c) Cooperate with and demonstrate to the satisfaction of City’s Solid Waste Management Division the establishm ent of the recycling program in paragraph (a) above and the ongoing maintenance thereof.
11. General Terms.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, all notices expressly required of City within the body of this Agreement, and not otherwise specifically provided for, shall be effective only if signed by the Administrator or designee. (b) Records of Service Provider’s expenses pertaining to the Project shall be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and shall be available to City or its authorized representatives upon request during regular business hours throughout the life of this Agreement and for a period of three years after final payment or, if longer, for any period required by law. In addition, all books, documents, papers, and records of Service Provider pertaining to the Project shall be available for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions for the same period of time. If any litigation, claim, negotiations, audit or other action is commenced before the expiration of said time period, all records shall be retained and made available to City until such action is resolved, or until the end of said time period whichever shall later occur. If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Service Provider shall cause each subcontractor to also comply with the requirements of this paragraph. This Section 11(b) shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
(c) Prior to execution of this Agreement by City, Service Provider shall have provided evidence to City that Service Provider is licensed to perform the services called for by this Agreement (or that no license is required). If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the work or services to be performed under this Agreement, Service Provider shall require each subcontractor to provide evidence to City that subcontractor is licensed to perform the services called for by this Agreement (or that no license is required) before beginning work.
12. Nondiscrimination. To the extent requ ired by controlling federal, state and local law, Service Provider shall not employ discriminatory practices in the provision of services, employment of personnel, or in any other respect on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
medical condition, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. Subject to the foregoing and during the performance of this Agreement, Service Provider agrees as follows:
(a) Service Provider will comply with all applicable laws and regulations providing that no person shall, on the grounds of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical di sability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity made possible by or resulting from this Agreement.
(b) Service Provider will not discriminat e against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. Service Provider shall ensure that applicants are employed, and the employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. Such requirement shall apply to Service Provider’s employment practices including, but not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Service Provider agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this nondiscrimination clause.
(c) Service Provider will, in all solicit ations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Service Provider in pursuit hereof, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era.
(d) Service Provider will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice advising such labor union or workers' representatives of Service Provider’s commitment under this section and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
(e) If Service Provider should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Service Provider shall cause each subcontractor to also comply with the requirements of this Section 12. -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
13. Independent Contractor.
(a) In the furnishing of the services provided for herein, Service Provider is acting solely as an independent contractor. Neither Service Provider, nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall be deemed an officer, agent, employee, joint venturer, partner, or associate of City for any purpose. City shall have no right to control or supervise or direct the manner or method by which Service Provider shall perform its work and functions. However, City shall retain the right to administer this Agreement so as to verify that Service Provider is performing its obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.
(b) This Agreement does not evidence a partnership or joint venture between Service Provider and City. Service Provider shall have no authority to bind City absent City’s express written consent. Except to the extent otherwise provided in this Agreement, Service Provider shall bear its own costs and expenses in pursuit thereof.
(c) Because of its status as an independent contractor, Service Provider and its officers, agents, and employees shall have absolutely no right to employment rights and benefits available to City employees. Service Provider shall be solely liable and responsible for all payroll and tax withholding and for providing to, or on behalf of, its employees all employee benefits including, without limitation, health, welfare and retirement benefits.
In addition, together with its other obligations under this Agreement, Service Provider shall be solely responsible, indemnify, defend and save City harmless from all matters relating to employment and tax withholding for and payment of Service Provider’s employees, including, without limitation, (i) compliance with Social Security and unemployment insurance withholding, payment of workers compensation benefits, and all other laws and regulations governing matters of employee withholding, taxes and payment; and (ii) any claim of right or interest in City employment benefits, entitlements, programs and/or funds offered employees of City whether arising by reason of any common law, de facto, leased, or co- employee rights or other theory. It is acknowledged that during the term of this Agreement, Service Provider may be providing services to others unrelated to City or to this Agreement.
14. Notices. Any notice required or intended to be given to either party under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be duly given if delivered personally, transmitted by facsimile followed by telephone confirmation of receipt, or sent by United States registered or certified mail, with postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to which notice is to be given at the party's address set forth on the signature page of this Agreement or at such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by written notice. Notices served by United States mail in the manner above described shall be deemed sufficiently served or given at the time of the mailing thereof. -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
15. Binding. Subject to Section 16, below, once this Agreement is signed by all parties, it shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, all parties, and each parties' respective heirs, successors, assi gns, transferees, agents, servants, employees and representatives.
16. Assignment.
(a) This Agreement is personal to Service Provider and there shall be no assignment by Service Provider of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. Any attempted assignment by Service Provider, its successors or assigns, shall be null and void unless approved in writing by the City Manager or designee.
(b) Service Provider hereby agrees not to assign the payment of any monies due Service Provider from City under the terms of this Agreement to any other individual(s), corporation(s) or entity(ies). City retains the right to pay any and all monies due Service Provider directly to Service Provider.
17. Compliance With Law. In providing the services required under this Agreement, Service Provider shall at all times comply with all applicable laws of the United States, the State of California and City, and with all applicable regulations promulgated by federal, state, regional, or local administrative and regulatory agencies, now in force and as they may be enacted, issued, or amended during the term of this Agreement.
18. Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. No provisions of this Agreement may be waived unless in writing and signed by all parties to this Agreement. Waiver of any one provision herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other provision herein.
19. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, excluding, however, any conflict of laws rule which would apply the law of another jurisdiction.
Venue for purposes of the filing of any action regarding the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement and any rights and duties hereunder shall be Fresno County, California.
20. Headings. The section headings in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall not be construed or held in any way to explain, modify or add to the interpretation or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement.
21. Severability. The provisions of this Ag reement are severable. The invalidity, or unenforceability of any one provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions.
22. Interpretation. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement in its final form is the result of the combined efforts of the parties and that, should any provision of this Agreement be found to be ambiguous in any way, such ambiguity shall not be -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
resolved by construing this Agreement in favor of or against either party, but rather by construing the terms in accordance with their generally accepted meaning.
23. Attorney's Fees. If either party is required to commence any proceeding or legal action to enforce or interpret any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceeding or action shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney's fees and legal expenses.
24. Exhibits. Each exhibit and attachment referenced in this Agreement is, by the reference, incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.
25. Precedence of Documents. In the event of any conflict between the body of this Agreement and any exhibit or attachment hereto, the terms and conditions of the body of this Agreement shall control and take precedence over the terms and conditions expressed within the exhibit or attachment. Furthermore, any terms or conditions contained within any exhibit or attachment hereto which purport to modify the allocation of risk between the parties, provided for within the body of this Agreement, shall be null and void.
26. Cumulative Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity.
27. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The rights, interests, duties, and obligations defined within this Agreement are intended for the specific parties hereto as identified in the preamble of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Agreement, it is not intended that any rights or interests in this Agreement benefit or flow to the interest of any third parties.
28. Extent of Agreement. Each party acknowledges that they have read and fully understand the contents of this Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be modified only by written instrument duly authorized and executed by both City and Service Provider.
29. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute and implement this Agreement. The previous sentence is not intended to delegate any authority to the City Manager to administer the Agreement, any delegation of authority must be expressly included in the Agreement.
[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE.]
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Fresno, California, the day and year first above written.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Fresno, California, on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF FRESNO,
A California municipal corporation
By:
Georgeanne A. White Date
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ANDREW JANZ
City Attorney
By:
Kristi Costa Date
Supervising Deputy City Attorney
ATTEST:
TODD STERMER, CMC
City Clerk
By:
Date
Deputy
Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
By:
Name:
Title:
(If corporation or LLC., Board Chair,
Pres. or Vice Pres.)
By:
Name:
Title:
(If corporation or LLC., CFO, Treasurer,
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
REVIEWED BY:
Addresses:
CITY:
City of Fresno
Attention: David Densley
Projects Administrator
2600 Fresno Street, 3
rd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 621-8473
E-mail: [email protected]
SERVICE PROVIDER:
Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
Attention: Travis Crawford
Principal Planner
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA, 93291
Phone: 559-840-4414
E-mail: Travis
@candbplanning.com
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A - Scope of Services
2. Exhibit B - Insurance Requirements
3. Exhibit C - Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
4. Exhibit D – Standards of Performance
-#20)',,3%*-.%
/"3)0/"4&-/$
/%0)$%,1
+)*5-4%,
555822v1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Service Agreement between City of Fresno
and Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO CEQA
See attached.
Schedule of Fees:
See attached.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Service Agreement between City of Fresno (City)
and Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc. (Service Provider)
ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO CEQA
MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. The most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01, providing liability coverage arising out of your business operations. The Commercial General Liability policy shall be written on an occurrence form and shall provide coverage for “bodily injury,” “property damage” and “personal and advertising injury” with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, and contractual liability (including, without limitation, indemnity obligations under the Agreement) with limits of liability not less than those set forth under “Minimum Limits of Insurance.”
2. The most current version of Commercial Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01, providing liability coverage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of automobiles in the course of your business operations. The Automobile Policy shall be written on an occurrence form and shall provide coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or other licensed vehicles (Code 1- Any Auto).
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession.
MINIMUM LIMITS OF INSURANCE
The Consultant, or any party the Consultant s ubcontracts with, shall maintain limits of liability of not less than those set forth below. However, insurance limits available to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds, shall be the greater of the minimum limits specified herein or the full limit of any insurance proceeds available to the named insured:
1. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY:
(i) $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage; (ii) $1,000,000 per occurrence for personal and advertising injury; (iii) $2,000,000 aggregate for produc ts and completed operations; and, (iv) $2,000,000 general aggregate applying separately to the work performed under the Agreement.
2. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY:
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE as required by the State of California with statutory limits.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
4. EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY:
(i) $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury;
(ii) $1,000,000 disease each employee; and,
(iii) $1,000,000 disease policy limit.
5. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY (Errors and Omissions):
(i) $1,000,000 per claim/occurrence; and,
(ii) $2,000,000 policy aggregate.
UMBRELLA OR EXCESS INSURANCE
In the event the Consultant purchases an Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) to meet the “Minimum Limits of Insurance,” this insurance policy(ies) shall “follow form” and afford no less coverage than the primary insurance policy(ies). In addition, such Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers.
DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS
The Consultant shall be responsible for paym ent of any deductibles contained in any insurance policy(ies) required herein and the Consultant shall also be responsible for payment of any self-insured retentions.
OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS/ENDORSEMENTS
The General Liability and Automobile Liability in surance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds. Consultant shall establish additional insured status for the City under the General Liability policy for all ongoing and completed operations by use of endorsements providing additional insured status as broad as that contained in ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or CG 20 10 04 13.
2. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any available insurance pr oceeds in excess of the spec ified minimum lim its and co verage shall be available to the Additional Insured.
3. Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. The Consultant shall establish primary and non- contributory status on the General Liability policy by use of ISO Form CG 20 01 04 13, or by an executed endorsement that provides primary and non-contributory status as broad as that contained in ISO Form CG 20 01 04
13. 4. All policies of insurance shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provision: the Consultant and its insurer shall waive any right of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
5. All policies of insurance required herein shall be endorsed to provide that the coverage shall not be cancelled, non-renewed, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 calendar days written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant is also responsible for providing written notice to the City under the same terms and conditions. Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent, of a notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage or in limits, the Consultant shall furnish the City with a new certificate and applicable endorsements for such policy(ies). In the event any policy is due to expire during the work to be performed for the City, the Consultant shall provide a new certificate, and applicable endorsements, evidencing renewal of such policy not less than 15 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy.
6. Should any of the required policies provide that the defense costs are paid within the Limits of Liability, thereby reducing the available limits by any defense costs, then the requirement for the Limits of Liability of these polices will be twice the above stated limits.
7. The fact that insurance is obtained by the Consultant shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of the Consultant, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. Approval or purchase of any insurance contracts or policies shall in no way relieve from liability nor limit the liability of the Consultant, its prin cipals, officers, agents, employees, persons under the supervision of the Consultant, vendors, suppliers, invitees, consultants, sub- consultants, subcontractors, or anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them.
CLAIMS-MADE POLICIES
If the Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance policy is written on a claims- made form:
1. The retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the effective date of the Agreement or the commencement of work by the Consultant.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement work or termination of the Agreement, whichever occurs first, or, in the alternative, the policy shall be endorsed to provide not less than a five-year discovery period.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims- made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the effective date of the Agreement or the commencement of work by the Consultant, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years completion of the Agreement work or termination of the Agreement, whichever occurs first.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.
5. These requirements shall survive expiration or termination of the Agreement.
VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
the Consultant shall furnish City with all certificate(s) and applicable endorsements effecting coverage required hereunder. All certificates and applicable endorsements are -#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
to be received and approved by the City’s Risk Manager or designee prior to City’s execution of the Agreement and before work commences. All non-ISO endorsements amending policy coverage shall be executed by a licensed and authorized agent or broker. Upon request of City, the Consultant shall immediately furnish City with a complete copy of any insurance policy required under this Agreement, including all endorsements, with said copy certified by the underwriter to be a true and correct copy of the original policy. This requirement shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.
SUBCONTRACTORS
If the Consultant subcontracts any or all of the services to be performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall require, at the discretion of the City Risk Manager or designee, subcontractor(s) to enter into a separate side agreement with the City to provide required indemnification and insurance protection. Any required side agreement(s) and associated insurance documents for the subcontractor must be reviewed and preapproved by City Risk Manager or designee. If no side agreement is required, the Consultant shall require and verify that subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein and the Consultant shall ensure that City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are additional insureds. The subcontractors' certificates and endorsements shall be on file with the Consultant, and City, prior to commencement of any work by the subcontractor.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
EXHIBIT C
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO CEQA
YES* NO
1 Are you currently in litigation with the City of Fresno or any of its agents?
2 Do you represent any firm, organization, or person who is in litigation with the City of Fresno?
3 Do you currently represent or perform work for any clients who do business with the City of Fresno?
4 Are you or any of your principals, managers, or professionals, owners or investors in a business which does business with the City of Fresno, or in a business which is in litigation with the City of Fresno?
5 Are you or any of your principals, managers, or professionals, related by blood or marriage to any City of Fresno employee who has any significant role in the subject matter of this service?
6 Do you or any of your subcontr actors have, or expect to have, any interest, direct or indirect, in any other contract in connection with this Project?
* If the answer to any question is yes, please explain in full below.
Explanation:
Signature
Date
Name
Company
Address
Additional page(s) attached.
City, State, Zip
-#20)',,3%*-.%
!
$%3%*-.%/0),1(%)153)"1(%
4"5"'/%%+%,1
/"4&-/$-4%,*",,),',#
(2/#(
1
2)1%
)0"*)"
!
!
/"3)0/"4&-/$
!
%./%."/%
$-#2+%,10&-/
!
!
555822v1
EXHIBIT D
Service Agreement between City of Fresno
and Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
ON-CALL CEQA SERVICES - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
This exhibit outlines the general expectations for participation in the On-Call CEQA list for the Planning and Development Department.
City Direction and Consultation
All work performed will be done under the g eneral direction of the City's Planning and Development Department, including Assistant Directors, Planning Managers, and other assigned staff. The Consultant shall not alter any project documents, including reports and environmental studies, without written approval from the City. Any necessary changes will be communicated through official channels (e.g., email).
Subcontractor Management
If subcontractors are required, City staff must be notified and approve in writing. The Developer is not authorized to contract directly with any subcontractors under this agreement. Furthermore, any subcontractors engaged by your firm must adhere to the confidentiality and ownership requirements outlined within this agreement.
Communication Protocol
The City retains final authority over the scope of work and environmental documentation, as advised by the City Attorney's Office. Consultants may communicate directly with the project sponsor as necessary strictly for the purpose of contract negotiation and management. Through the Department’s CEQA coordinator, consultants may communicate with the project sponsor for the purpose of preparing the project description/ draft Scope of Work and formulating mitigation measures and alternatives.
Communication regarding project details or public pr esentations will include the CEQA coordinator.
Confidential Information and Ownership
All materials, documents, and data generated under this agreement are considered confidential and remain the property of the City. Consultants may not share these materials with third parties without prior written consent from the City. This includes all proprietary information, including materials and communications disclosed or submitted during the course of work. Consultants must provide all deliverables to the Department only, and only the Department can distribute copies of the work product to a project sponsor.
Standards of Performance
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
The City reserves the right to take appropriate action in cases of non-performance. Failure to meet the standards of performance may warrant your firm's removal from the On-Call list. Examples of non-performance include, but are not limited to:
1. Consistency and Accuracy of Project Descriptions- Documents must have a consistent project description across all sections, technical reports, and/or studies.
2. Determination of Appropriate Level of CEQA Documentation- City of Fresno planning staff shall determine the appropriate CEQA clearance document for all projects. This includes a determination of whether an action is discretionary/ subject to CEQA, review of project’s applicability for exemption, and/or preparation of an Initial Study or EIR.
3. Substantive Errors and Incomplete Ana lysis- Documents containing substantive errors, incomprehensible, or conclusory analyses, or those below City standards are unacceptable.
4. Missing Technical Reports or Studies- Sections submitted without the required technical reports/studies will not be accepted.
5. Report Organization - The information within the environmental documents, including Environmental Impact Reports, shall be submitted in a logical and orderly manner. The information must be presented in a commonly accepted format that is readily understood by both the public and public agencies.
6. Failure to Address Staff Comments in Resubmissions- When resubmitting documents, consultants must respond fully to all staff and City Attorney Office comments.
7. Failure to Meet Agreed Timelines, Activities, or Deliverables- Exceeding or deviating from the agreed-upon activities, timelines, or deliverables outlined in the project's scope of work without prior approval is unacceptable.
8. Legal Defensibility of Environmental Documents- Environmental documents must be legally defensible, as determined by the City Attorney's Office. Failure to produce legally sound documents may result in removal from the on-call list.
9. Inadequate Analysis- Reports should not simply cut and paste content from technical reports without providing meaningful analysis, interpretation, and logical flow.
10. Failure to Coordinate with Relevant Agencies- Consultants must follow up with and coordinate with City staff and relevant public agencies when clarification is needed for environmental reviews.
11. Inadequate Consistency Analysis- A response to a consistency analysis must include comprehensive discussions, providing a clear rationale for why a project would or would not conflict with policies. Simply restating the project description is insufficient.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
555822v1
12. Insufficient Detail on Regulatory Compliance- Documents should not merely restate regulatory measures without adding meaningful clarification or details regarding regulatory compliance.
13. Objectivity in Consultant Prepared Materials- Consultants shall remain neutral and provide only objective, unbiased materials and services to the Department.
14. Failure to Follow State CEQA Guidelines- Failure to comply with State CEQA Guidelines and State CEQA clearinghouse requirements for the requested service will be considered a violation of performance standards.
15. Timely Communication- Consultants shall respond to requests from the City within ten (10) business days. Failure to respond within (10) business days may lead to removal from the On-Call list. Similarly, the City will respond to inquiries and provide reviews within ten (10) business days, unless otherwise communicated.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Statement of Qualifications
November 29, 2024
City of Fresno On-
Call Environmental
Services
Bid File #12501022
-#20)',,3%*-.%
113 N. Church St. Suite #310 | Visalia, CA 93291 | 559.840.4414 | www.candbplanning.com
November 29, 2024
Nadia Salinas
City of Fresno
Re: Bid File #12501022, Crawford & Bowen Plannin g, Inc. SOQ On-Call Environmental Services Pursuant to CEQA
Dear Ms. Salinas,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our Statement of Qualifications for the City’s On-Call Environmental Services. It is our sincere intention to provide you with the best possible environmental compliance services while spending the least amount of the City’s limited resources.
We hope that our past experience with providing on-call services to other cities, our demonstrated CEQA capabilities and our recent City of Fresno CEQA experience will instill the type of confidence you need to have while selecting an environmental consultant.
Crawford & Bowen Planning delivers an enviro nmental compliance strategy that is both economically and environmentally sound. Our comprehensive approach to project analysis is based on integration of strategic planning, early iden tification of issues, constant communication and creative problem solving. We are hopeful that we br ing a high level of comfort to the City because we are familiar with your staff, your procedures and templates, and we understand some of the planning/environmental history of the City. Finally, because we are a small, efficient company, Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. is able to prov ide the City with an extremely cost effective method of achieving environmental compliance.
Attached hereto is our Statement of Qualifications and we are hopeful that it provides you with the information you need. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Travis Crawford at (559) 840-4414 ext. 2 or [email protected]. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Travis L. Crawford, AICP Emily Bowen, LEED AP
Principal Planner Principal Planner
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
1 Crawford & Bowen
Planning, Inc.
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. was established in early 2014 and is based in Visalia, California. This Statement of Qualifications consists of the following:
Firm / Team Overview……….………………………….2
Team Member Summary….......………………..……….4
References………........…………………………..……….7
Summary of Qualifications.......…..…………..……….14
Rate Sheet and Legal Documents….……………….…16
Appendix A – Work Samples
Appendix B - Resumes
Contact Information
113 North Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, California 93291
Phone: 559.840.4414
www.candbplanning.com
“I have worked with both Travis and Emily for
several years. They have been incredibly thorough
and responsive when dealing with complex
environmental issues. I know I can trust the work
product that comes from them.”
Brad Dunlap, AICP. City of Porterville,
Community Development Director, Retired
Key Services
x CEQA/NEPA
x Regulatory
Processing
x Farmland
Conversion
Studies
x Caltrans
Environmental
Processing
Our Principals
x 30+ years
combined
experience
x AICP
Certification
x LEED AP
x Relationships
with Public
Agencies
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
2 Firm / Team Overview
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. was formed to satisfy a need in the Central Valley and surrounding areas for specialized environmental planning services. Our mission is to provide excellent environmental consulting at the most efficient level, while maintaining the highest standards for quality and legal compliance.
Our firm specializes in CEQA/NEPA documentation , farmland conversion studies, regulatory compliance, State Water Boar d environmental compliance and Caltrans environmental processing. To supplement our se rvices, we have long-standing relationships with specialized firms who provide biological, traffic, cultural, water and noise consulting services. These individual services can be provided on an as-n eeded basis under the management and oversight of Crawford & Bowen. This provides our clients with a full service environmental team.
Having come from two of the largest planning firms in the Central Valley, the principals of Crawford & Bowen have prepared a wide variety of environmental documents over the last 22 years. Our experience includes providing environmental compliance for colleges, K-12 schools, bridge replacements, road improvements, wastewater treatment plant expansions, large-scale residential and commer cial developments, industrial parks, water infrastructure projects, water transfer projects, policy and planning documents, and a host of other project types.
What makes us different is that we are the only speciali zed environmental planning firm in the area. In addition , we are able to provide efficienc ies that some of the larger CEQA/engineering/surveying firms are not able to offer, as we are not overburdened with corporate meetings, staff manage ment, marketing, etc. As such, our clients don’t pay steep overhead prices, yet they still receive principal-level work product.
Because environmental planning is all we do, we are able to provide our clients with focused expertise and cutting-edge work projects. Our firm is constantly working to stay up to date with the most recent regulato ry and legal updates and since we’ve been working in the area for over a decade, we have es tablished excellent working re lationships with most local jurisdictions and regulatory agencies.
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. will be primary authors and strategists on documents and will enlist the assistance of subconsultants as necessary. We will be responsible for managing the Project Team and will be the single point of contact for the City.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
3 Travis L. Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner Mr. Crawford is a tested environmental planner who
specializes in obtaining environmental compliance for
public works projects, residential/commercial
development projects, policy documents,
college/school districts, Caltrans projects, and many
other types of projects. He has particular expertise and experience in working on controversial projects and is
adept at public presentations and hearings. Mr.
Crawford brings a keen legal eye and is a trusted
resource to cities, counties, school districts and
developers throughout the Central Valley. His diverse
project experience has involved him in most every
type of project spanning up and down the State of California. He has worked with dozens of lead agencies and jurisdictions providing sound environmental compliance strategies. Prior to co-founding Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. in March 2014, Mr. Crawford served a Principal Environmental Planner and Planning Department Manager for Quad Knopf (2002 – 2014). His full résumé is included in the Appendix to this SOQ
.
Emily Bowen, LEED AP, Principal Environmental Planner
Ms. Bowen is an experienced environmental planner
who assists Lead Agencies and developers in attaining
environmental compliance pursuant to CEQA and
NEPA. She will assist in preparation of the City’s
environmental documents. She has worked with
several cities and counties throughout the California
Central Valley, along with many Federal Lead
Agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.
Department of Energy. She has extensive knowledge
in preparing documents for a multitude of project
types, including industrial processing plants, dairies
and other animal confinement facilities, solar energy generation facilities, and water transfers and related infrastructure between irrigation and water districts. She enjoys people and is a natural at building relationships within local public agencies as well as state regulatory agencies. Prior to co-founding Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. in March 2014, Ms. Bowen was a senior environmental planner for Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2008 – 2014) and Quad Knopf (2006 – 2008). Her full résumé is included in the Appendix to this SOQ.
Education
x San Diego State University, B.A., English
x University of San Diego, Graduate
Paralegal Certificate – Environmental Law
Certifications / Memberships
x American Institute of Certified Planners
(AICP), No. 025073
x Assoc. of Environmental Planners (AEP)
x American Planning Assoc. (APA)
Education
x CSU, Fresno, B.S., Biology
x UC Davis, Graduate Certificate – Green
Building and Sustainable Design
Certifications / Memberships
x LEED Accredited Professional, New
Construction, U.S. Green Building Council
x Air Quality Mgmt. Certificate, SJVAPCD
x Certified Green Building Professional
x Assoc. of Environmental Planners (AEP)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
4 Crawford & Bowen will:
x Prepare CEQA, NEPA & CEQA-Plus
documentation
x Coordinate with City staff / maintain
availability during regular business hours
x Prepare notices in accordance with
CEQA/NEPA
x Maintain administrative record
x Provide weekly updates to the City
x Attend/Present at Planning Commission
and/or City Council meetings
Team Member Summary
Our firm consists of principal planners Travis Crawford, AICP and Emily Bowen, LEED AP (Please refer to our full resumès attached hereto), along with additional contract planners we bring on board as necessary to meet the needs and demands of our clients. These individuals work under the direct supervision (as well as insurance umbrella) of Crawford & Bowen and all their work is carefully reviewed by our principals.
To supplement our environmental planning services, Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. has teamed with highly qualified local firms to provide the full spectrum of technical services to the City of Fresno. Brief descriptions of the firms and their personnel are included later in this SOQ.
x Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers – Traffic Analysis x Colibri Ecological Consulting – Biological Services
x Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting Services – AQ/GHG/HRA x WJV Acoustics – Noise Services
x Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates – Cultural/Historical Services
Traffic Analysis
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers (R&S CE), established in 1980, is a consulting civil engineering firm specializing in traffic impact and transportation studies, transportation and public works facilities design, grade separa tion projects and right -of-way engineering. The majority of projects we have undertaken involve working directly with public agencies including special districts, cities, counties an d the State of Californi a, through their public works or transportation offices.
R&S CE has significant experience in the preparation of traffic and transportation studies. The types of studies include traffic impact studies for environmental documents relating to CEQA and NEPA for master planned communities, re sidential housing developments, commercial, industrial, manufacturing, ware house, energy projects includ ing petroleum/solar/wind, and public works transportation facilities planning. In our 40 years R&S CE has conducted more -#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
5 than 1,000 traffic and transportation studies in the Counties of Kern, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Madera, Merced and San Luis Obispo.
Additionally R&S CE has extens ive experience in the design of Public Works projects, which include street and highway design, traffic sign al and lighting design , drainage studies, planning, feasibility studies, utility investig ation services, and right-of-way engineering. In addition to design work R&S CE specializes in right-of-way engineering, acquisition and relocation work for public agencies and private companies. x Traffic impact studies, counts and mitigation analysis x Roadway design
x Infrastructure analysis
Key Personnel: Ian Parks, PE. As Project Manager/S enior Engineer, Mr. Parks is responsible for overseeing the preparation of transp ortation, traffic impact and traffic signal corridor studies, and design oversight for a variety of roadway improvement projects, traffic sign al systems, site and drainage improvements. He is also responsible fo r oversight on utility investigations and relocation efforts, preparation of right-of-way mapping, construction inspection on road improvements and building removal projects. He has been with Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers since 1994, becoming a partner in 2004.
Biological Resources
Colibri Ecological Consulting provides professional ecological consulting services through all project phases, from conception and planning to implementation and monitoring. Their mission is to help clients carry out successful projects by providing sound scientific information and analysis to address natural resource challenges. The firm employs several experienced and well qualified biologists who are trained and certified to handle any biological issues that may arise.
Colibri provides a range of services, including:
x Biological surveys, analyses and reports
x Environmental permitting and compliance
x Wetland delineations
x Environmental training and compliance
monitoring
Key Personnel: Jeff Davis, Biologist. Jeff is an ecologist with more than 30 years of professional experience who specializes in the identification, ecological requirements and regulatory protection of the flora and fauna of California. He will be the point of contact for the firm and will assign tasks to other Colibri biologists, depending on the circumstances and needs of a project.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
6 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, & Health Risk Assessments Johnson Johnson and Miller (JJM) Air Quality Co nsulting Services is a partnership between three environmental profession als with expertise in perfor ming various air quality and greenhouse gas analyses to support Califo rnia Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) env ironmental documents. JJM is equipped to provide technically and legally defensible a ir quality and greenhouse gas analyses for residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial projects across California. The team at JJM is skilled in using CalEEMod, AERMOD, EM FAC, Sacramento Road Model, and BAAQMD screening tools to estimate emissi ons and related impacts. JJM also specializes in providing accessory air quality analyses to meet the compliance requirem ents of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rules 9510 and 8021. x Air quality permitting
x Air quality impact analysis
x Air quality compliance auditing
x Air toxics identification and reporting
x Greenhouse gas analysis
x Health risk assessments
Key Personnel: Kimber Johnson. Kimber is an Air Qual ity and Dispersion Modeling Specialist with ten years of experienc e in modeling and the preparation of associated CEQA documentation for land use development projects. Kimber has performed air quality/GHG analyses an d health risk assessments to support CEQA documents using a wide rang e of models and has extensive knowledge of various quantification methods. Kimber also prepares other air quality compliance documentation, including Indirect Source Reviews (ISRs) for San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 9510, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission inventories, and dust control plans. Kimber has a thorough understanding of the air qu ality and GHG emission regulatory requirements of numerous air districts throughout California, with extensive knowledge of San Joaquin Valley regulations.
Noise-Related Services
WJV Acoustics, formerly Brown-Buntin Associates, is a full-service acoustical consulting firm which specializes in the measurement, modeling and evaluation of environmental and transportation noise. WJV utilizes state-of-the-art sound measurement and analysis equipment, coupled with computer data management and modeling capabilities. Services include:
x Environmental noise assessments
x General Plan Noise Elements
x Preparation of noise exposure maps
x Noise mitigation design
Key Personnel: Walter J. Van Groningen, President. Walter has been preparing noise-related technical services since 2005. He is experienced in working with a wide range of projects, including Caltrans compliance documents.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
7 Cultural Resources
Hudlow Cultural Resources Associates (HCRA) began conducting cultural resource management work in November 1995. HCRA has worked for a variety of public and private clients, including municipal and county governments. The firm has almost 30 years experience conducting cultural resource, ar chaeological and arch itectural surveys and evaluation, including years of experience working in the southern San Joaquin Valley. x Cultural / historical / archaeological studies
x Cultural resource surveys
x Native American consultations
x Caltrans compliance
x CEQA support
x Development of mitigation measures
Key Personnel: Scott Hudlow
References
We are currently on-call environmental planners to several local cities and one County, but much of our experience comes from working for the private development sector. Our principals have prepared hundreds of environmental documents over the past 20 years for a variety of projects. We have provided three references as follows:
x City of Tehachapi – On-call Environmental Planning. Crawford & Bowen provides environmental consulting services on an as-needed basis to the City of Tehachapi. Our duties include providing CEQA consulting services and preparation of CEQA documents and related technical studies for a variety of development projects. Travis Crawford serves as the Project Manager.
o Jay Schlosser, PE, Development Services Director
City of Tehachapi
(661) 822-2200 ext. 115
[email protected]
x City of Sanger – General Plan Update EIR. Crawford & Bowen prepared an EIR for the City’s General Plan Update. The EIR included technical studies for traffic and noise and included a comprehensiv e update. Travis Crawford served as the Project Manager.
o David Brletic, Community Development Director
City of Sanger
(559) 876-6300, ext. 1520
[email protected]
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
8 x City of Porterville – On-call Environmental Planning. Crawford & Bowen is currently serving as on-call environmental pl anners for the City of Porterville. Since 2014, our firm has prepared numerous CEQA documents and technical studies for the City for residential, commercial and infrastructure projects. Emily Bowen serves as the Project Manager.
o Claudia Calderon, Community Development Director
City of Porterville
(559) 782-7460
[email protected]
The following are references for the Crawford & Bowen Team:
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers – Traffic Analysis
x City of Bakersfield - R&S CE has prepared Traffic Impact Studies for several projects over the past 40 years working with the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. o Ryan Starbuck, P.E.
Traffic Engineer – Traffic Division
City of Bakersfield
Office Phone: (661) 326-3995
[email protected]
x City of Delano - Traffic Study for the Project Study Report for the Proposed High Street Flyover R&S CE has been retained by the City of Delano to prepare a Project Study Report for the proposed High Street flyover at State Route 99. As part of the PSR R&S CE is in the process of preparing the traffic analysis for the proposed project. The project includes the realignment of High Street just west of the underpass the BNSF Railroad to cross over State Route 99 and realign to connect to Morse Boulevard and Dover Parkway. The study includes analyzing the shift in traffic with the realignment and the effects on the adjacent roadways and intersections. The analysis includes a Vehicle Miles Travelled analysis in addition to Level of Service.
o Roman Dowling, Public Works Director
City of Delano
Office Phone: (661) 720-2219
[email protected]
x City of Porterville - R&S CE has worked on several traffic studies for developments within the City of Porterville. Most have been prepared as a subconsultant to Crawford & Bowen under their on-call contract with the City. Examples of studies prepared are listed below.
o Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
9 City of Porterville
Office Phone: (559) 782-7460
[email protected]
Colibri Ecological Consulting – Biological Services
x Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District - Since 2012, Colibri has provided the District will a range of services including (1) conducting pre-activity clearance surveys for special-status species and nesting birds ahead of maintenance activities to comply with conditions in the District’s Master Streambed Alteration Agreement, (2) monitoring post- project restoration progress to comply with conditions in a Clean Water Act permit, (3) performing protocol surveys for the state listed as threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) to satisfy a project mitigation measure, and (4) preparing biological resource evaluations to support CEQA documents for new projects. o Joseph Draper
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Office Phone: (559) 456-3292
[email protected]
x California High Speed Rail, Fresno to Bakersfield - Since 2018, Colibri has provided biological support to keep the project in compliance with its Incidental Take Permit and Master Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, its Biological Opinion with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, its Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and its CWA Section 401 water quality certification with the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Colibri biologists conduct nesting bird surveys, pre-construction surveys, pre-activity surveys, protocol surveys, live-trapping surveys, environmental awareness trainings, and environmental compliance monitoring. Colibri also reviews permit amendments, coordinates with agency representatives, and identifies appropriate schedules for time-sensitive surveys to ensure environmental compliance.
o Scott Smith, Supervising Environmental Planner
California High Speed Rail Authority
[email protected]
x Shirk Road Widening and Mill Creek Modification Project - Colibri conducted a biological technical study to help the City meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review requirements for the project concerning biological resources. Colibri also conducted an aquatic resources delineation and prepared applications for a Lake and -#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
10 Streambed Alteration Agreement, Clean Water Act 404 permit, and Clean Water Act 401 water quality certification.
o Fred Lampe
City of Visalia
(559) 713-4270
[email protected]
Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting Services – AQ/GHG/HRA Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project -JJM prepared the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan in Visalia, CA. The report included full quantification of criteria air pollutant and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with buildout contemplated unde r the proposed 507-acre Specific Plan. Ms. Johnson and the other two JJM partner s worked closely with the Prime Consultant and the City of Visalia planni ng staff from the st art of work on the analysis until the plan was approved by the City in 2023. JJM worked through comments from the City Staff and peer re views and also attended the relevant Planning Commission and City Board Meetin gs. JJM also addressed comments from the SJVAPCD to the City’s satisfaction and assisted the Prime Consultant in preparing the Air Quality, GHG, Energy EIR sections that largely relied on the analysis contained in the Air Quality and GHG/Energy Analysis Report. The robust analysis and related technical report thoroughly addressed th e relevant CEQA impact questions, and minimal public comments were received.
Kimber Johnson and Richard Miller prep ared the air quali ty, GHG, and energy analyses and associated combined tech nical report. Debbie Johnson provided consultation on SJVAPCD rules and regulati ons and attended the relevant Planning Commission and City Board Meetings in the City of Visalia. o Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
(559) 713-4363
[email protected]
x A-Z Truck Center Project - JJM completed the Air Quality, Health Risk Assessment (HRA), GHG, and Energy Technical Analysis for a truck travel center in Chowchilla, CA. The Air Quality Analysis included an HRA to evalua te toxic air containments from heavy-heavy duty truck visits and gasoline dispensing activities. Kimber Johnson completed emissions estimates an d, with another JJM partner (Richard Miller), prepared all aspects of the air qu ality, HRA, GHG, and energy analyses. As the project included truck parking, diesel truck fueling, and 14 gasoline pumps (28 vehicle fueling positions), the air qualit y analysis required different emission calculations, including mitigated scenarios. JJM completed the regional emission estimates, as well as dispersion modeling for benzene from fueling activities and -#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
11 diesel particulate matter from heavy-duty trucks (during construction and operations) and off-road construction equipment. JJM also identified recommended mitigation as part of completing the analysis.
Kimber Johnson and Richard Miller prepared the air quality (including health risk assessment), GHG, and energy analyses and associated combined technical report.
Debbie Johnson provided consultation on the applicability of SJVAPCD rules and regulations.
o Bonique Emerson, VP of Planning
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
(559) 449-4500
[email protected]
x Fruit Packing and Cold Storage Project in Fresno County - JJM prepared the Air Quality/HRA/GHG Analysis to support the CEQA review of a proposed fruit packing and cold storage facility totaling approximately 900,000 square feet in Fresno County.
The analyses included emission estimates from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), refrigerants used in cold storage uses, d iesel particulate matter from delivery trucks (estimated using lower speed bins and appropriate idling times for the localized HRA analysis), emissions from off-road equipment, in addition to the typical building, area, and passenger vehicle emission sources. JJM also worked directly with the project applicant to provide an Air Impact As sessment package for compliance with SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. Ms. Johnson provided consultation to the project applicant and discussed project details with SJVAPCD on behalf of the project applicant to ensure th e air quality analysis foll owed the most up-to-date SJVAPCD guidance and to assist the project applicant comply with all applicable Air District Rules and Regulations.
Kimber Johnson and Richard Miller prep ared the air quali ty, GHG, and energy analyses and associated combined technica l report. Debbie Johnson assisted in the preparation of the Air Impact Assessment package for complian ce with SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review, the prepar ation of the Dust Control Plan for compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, provided consultation regarding the applicability of other SJVAPCD rules, and as sisted in guiding the applicant through the steps needed to ensure compliance.
o Colby Campbell, General Manager
Cobblestone Fruit
(559) 301-3827
[email protected]
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
12 WJV Acoustics – Noise Services
x Niles Street Residential Development – Bakersfield, CA- The project was the construction of a 50-unit affordable hous ing residential development located in Bakersfield, California. The proj ect site was located adjacent to an arterial roadway, requiring environmental review per HUD an d NEPA guidelines. WJVA conducted short-term noise level measurements and traffic noise modeling to document exterior project site noise exposure. Additionally , WJVA reviewed the calculated exterior traffic noise exposure and the proposed building construction components to calculate anticipated interior noise levels, and provided recommendations necessary to mitigate interior noise levels to below applicable noise level standards. o Stephen M. Pelz
Housing Authority of the County of Kern
(661) 631-8500
[email protected]
x Golden Charter Academy School – Fresno, CA - The project included the demolition of existing on-site structures and the construction and operation of a new K-8 charter school facility. The new facility provided nineteen (19) new classrooms, within approximately 35,000 square-feet of newly constructed buildings. WJVA conducted on-site traffic noise measurements, modeled existing and future project-site traffic noise exposure levels, and calculated anti cipated interior noise levels based upon exterior noise levels and the proposed building construction. WJVA compared modeled interior noise levels to applic able City of Fresno interior noise level standards for school land uses. WJVA prepared an Environmental Noise Assessment for the project.
o Ms. Laurie Blakeman
Krazan & Associates
(559) 348-2200
[email protected]
x City of Fresno Motels Conversion Project – Fresno, CA - The project was the conversion of four (4) existing motel sites within the City of Fresno, to homeless and low-income affordable housing. WJVA perfor med an initial assessment of exterior noise exposure and interior noise expos ure. WJVA conducted continuous 24-hour noise monitoring at the four pr oject sites for a period of fi ve (5) days. Additionally, WJVA conducted outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction (NLR) measurements to calculate the existing interior noise exposure provided by the existing hotel envelope.
WJVA prepared reports providing the methodology and data from the four assessments, as part of a required NEPA level analysis as required by HUD. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
13 o Mr. Dave Brenner
Fresno Housing Authority
(661) 631-1533
[email protected]
Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates – Cultural/Historical Services x Housing Authority of Kern County - For the Housing Authority of the County of Kern, HCRA has performed multiple cultural resource surveys for various housing projects.
Most of these surveys are small-scale surveys for in-fill low-income housing projects. o Maria Guzman
Housing Authority of Kern County
(661) 631-8500
[email protected]
x City of Bakersfield – For the City of Bakersfield, HCR A has conducted both cultural resource surveys and architectural surveys, particularly surveys for historic public lighting.
o Chris Hinds
City of Bakersfield
(661) 852-7543
[email protected]
x Boys & Girls Club – For the Boys and Girls Clubs, HCRA performed a combined Phase I/II architectural surv ey and evaluation for the Lamont Club, which was in need of extensive architectural repair, in regard to a needed roof replacement. o Marc Caputo
Boys & Girls Club
(661) 325-3730
[email protected]
Work Samples
Please see Appendix A. Excerpts are provided for the following projects:
x Copper River Ranch Subsequent EIR
x Fresno Fig Garden Financial Center Office Building Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resumes
Please see Appendix B.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
14 Summary of Qualifications
Crawford & Bowen believe in an environmental compliance strategy that is both economically and environmentally sound. Our comprehensive approach to project analysis is based on integration of strategic planning, early identification of issues, constant communication and creative problem solving. Our representative services include:
CEQA NEPA
Categorical/Statutory Exemptions Categorical Exclusions Initial Studies Environmental Assessments
Negative / Mitigated Negative Declarations
Environmental Impact Reports
Finding of No Significant Impacts
Environmental Impact Statements
OTHER SERVICES
Regulatory Permitting and Compliance Farmland Conversion Studies Caltrans Environmental Processing
Public Hearings / Presentations
Representative Project Types
Residential Development Colleges / Universities
New K-12 Schools Bridge Replacements
Policy Documents (General Plans, etc.)
Commercial Developments
Infrastructure Projects
Specific Plans
Industrial Developments
WWTP Expansions
Road Projects Water Projects
The following is a partial list of recent (2014-2024) CEQA documents prepared by Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.:
x Copper River Ranch Project – City of Fresno – Subsequent EIR. Crawford & Bowen prepared a Subsequent EIR for the expansion and partial rezoning of the Copper River Ranch Development Project. Cr awford & Bowen oversaw a team of subconsultants including traffic, noise, air and biology to support the EIR. The EIR was certified by the City.
x City of Fresno – Various Initial Studie s and Mitigated Negative Declarations.
Crawford & Bowen prepared numerous documents for the City of Fresno including Initial Studies for residential development projects, commercial developments, mixed- use developments over the past several years. Crawford & Bowen is familiar with City staff, templates and procedures.
x Madera Unified School District - New Elementary School MND. Crawford & Bowen prepared a mitigated negative declaration and associated technical studies for a new -#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
15 K-6 school adjacent to the City of Madera. Technical studies included an agricultural conversion study, biological study, traffic study and infrastructure analysis. Crawford & Bowen also assisted with CDE compliance documents.
x College of the Sequoias – Facilities Master Plan EIR. Crawford & Bowen is currently preparing an EIR for the COS Facilities Master Plan. The Plan outlines student growth and associated improvements to the campus for the next 20 years. x City of Sanger – General Plan Update EIR. Crawford & Bowen, Inc. prepared a comprehensive EIR for the City’s General Plan.
x Kings County – Henrietta Energy Storage System Facility CEQA . The IS/MND described the potential environmental effects of a battery storage facility southwest of the City of Lemoore. To allow for the pr oject, a CUP, Tentative Map and DCTC were approved. Issues included agricultural conversion and impacts to sensitive species. x Tulare County – Andersen Village Residential EIR. Crawford & Bowen prepared an environmental impact report for a 54-acre ho using development adjacent to the City of Kingsburg. Issues included traffic, water supply and air quality. x City of Fresno – Parc West Residential CEQA. This project includes up to 850 residential units on approximately 160 acre s in Fresno. Crawford & Bowen prepared an EIR and related technical studies.
x City of Tehachapi – Pilot / Flying J
Travel Center EIR. Crawford &
Bowen prepared an EIR for a
proposed truck stop / travel center
located along SR58 in Tehachapi.
The EIR focused on impacts
associated with traffic, air, noise,
aesthetics, biological & cultural
resources, and water.
x City of Porterville – Westwood EIR.Crawford & Bowen recently completed a Focused EIR for a retail / commercial development lo cated on 4.5 acres in Porterville. Water and traffic were main components of the analysis.
x City of Kerman – Helena Chemical Tank Project CEQA. The project consisted of new non-hazardous liquid storage tanks (four 500,000-gallon tanks and fourteen 30,000- gallon tanks) for the purpose of utilizing rail delivery more efficiently. The IS/MND was approved to support the project CUP.
x Tulare County – Asphalt Plant EIR. Crawford & Bowen pr epared an EIR and associated technical studie s for the permanent establis hment of an 8,000 ton/day asphalt batch plant operation. The project required a water supply analysis, biological study, traffic study, air quality/GHG report, and a noise impact analysis. x City of Tulare – B Street Improvements CEQA/NEPA. This project was funded through HUD and required both CEQA an d NEPA documentation. Crawford & Bowen prepared all of the required technical studies and CEQA/NEPA documents.
Pilot travel center site
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
16 x Tulare County – Mine Expansion EIR. This project involved the expansion of Deer Creek Mine. Crawford & Bowen prepared the EIR.
x Water/Wastewater Projects – CEQA/NEPA. Crawford & Bowen have prepared CEQA, NEPA and related te chnical studies for various water and wastewater infrastructure projects throughout the Central Valley. These include wastewater treatment plant expansions, water treatment projects, and water storage projects. We have worked with the following jurisdicti ons on these projects: Huron, Firebaugh, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Biola Community Services District, Keyes Community Services District, and Groveland Community Services District. x City of Porterville - Waste Transfer MND. Crawford & Bowen prepared a mitigated negative declaration for expansion of the City's waste transfer facility. Analysis included impacts to traffic, air quality and noise to surrounding neighborhoods. x Active Transportation Plans – CEQA. We
prepared CEQA documentation for local Active
Transportation Plans for the City of Clovis, Madera County Transportation Commission, and Fresno COG.
x Lower Tule River Irrigation District – Lake Success Expansion CEQA. Crawford & Bowen assisted the Lower Tule River Irriga tion District and the Army Corps of Engineers with CEQA docum entation and processing associated with expansion of Lake Success. The project is intended to increase storage capacity of the lake by 10 feet.
Rate Sheet
Legal Documents
Please see the Statement of no Conflict of In terest and the Statement of Acceptance of the Indemnification and Insurance Requirements.
Title Name Hourly Rate
3ULQFLSDO(QYLURQPHQWDO3ODQQHU 7UDYLV&UDZIRUG$,&3 3ULQFLSDO(QYLURQPHQWDO3ODQQHU (PLO\%RZHQ/(('$3 $VVRFLDWH3ODQQHU
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH'RFXPHQW&UHDWLRQ
Expenses
6XEFRQVXOWDQWV &RVW
0LOHDJH PLOH
RUFXUUHQW,56DPRXQW
3ULQWLQJ &RVWDWSULQWVKRS
6KLSSLQJ0DLOLQJ &RVWDW836)HG([RU8636
Reedley boat launch
-#20)',,3%*-.%
$//%*HQHULF&6$ 1RWWR([FHHG
RI
(;+,%,7&
',6&/2685(2)&21)/,&72),17(5(67
>3URMHFW7LWOH@
<(6
12 $UH\RXFXUUHQWO\LQOLWLJDWLRQZLWKWKH&LW\RI)UHVQRRUDQ \RI LWVDJHQWV"
'R\RXUHSUHVHQWDQ\ILUPRUJDQL]DWLRQRUSHUVRQZKRLVLQ OLWLJDWLRQZLWKWKH&LW\RI)UHVQR"
'R\RXFXUUHQWO\UHSUHVHQWRUSHUIRUPZRUNIRUDQ\FOLHQWVZK R GREXVLQHVVZLWKWKH&LW\RI)UHVQR"
$UH\RXRUDQ\RI\RXUSULQFLSDOVPDQDJHUVRUSURIHVVLRQDOV RZQHUV RU LQYHVWRUV LQ D EXVLQHVV ZKLFK GRHV EXVLQHVV ZLWK WKH&LW\RI)UHVQRRULQDEXVLQHVVZKLFKLVLQOLWLJDWLRQZLW K WKH&LW\RI)UHVQR"
$UH\RXRUDQ\RI\RXUSULQFLSDOVPDQDJHUVRUSURIHVVLRQDOV UHODWHGE\EORRGRUPDUULDJHWRDQ\&LW\RI)UHVQRHPSOR\HH ZKR KDV DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW UROH LQ WKH VXEMHFW PDWWHU RI WKLV VHUYLFH"
'R\RXRUDQ\RI\RXUVXEFRQWUDF WRUVKDYHRUH[SHFWWRKDYH DQ\ LQWHUHVW GLUHFW RU LQGLUHFW LQ DQ\ RWKHU FRQWUDFW LQ FRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKLV3URMHFW"
,IWKHDQVZHUWRDQ\TXHVWLRQLV\HVSOHDVHH[SODLQLQIXOO EHORZ ([SODQDWLRQ
6LJQDWXUH
'DWH
1DPH
&RPSDQ\
$GGUHVV
$GGLWLRQDOSDJH
V
DWWDFKHG
&LW\6WDWH=LS
;
;
;
;
;
;
1RYHPEHU
7UDYLV&UDZIRUG
&UDZIRUG %RZHQ3ODQQLQJ,QF
1&KXUFK6W6XLWH
9LVDOLD&$
DLQLQIXOO
EHORZ
DWXU
H
-#20)',,3%*-.%
67$7(0(17 2) $&&(37$1&( 2) 7+( ,1'(01,),&$7,21
$1',1685$1&(5(48,5(0(176
5(48(67)2548$/,),&$7,216)2521&$//(19,5210(17$/5(9,(: 6(59,&(638568$1772&(4$
%,' ),/(12
7KH3URSRVHUVKDOOVLJQEHORZWKDWWKH3URSRVHUDFFHSWVLQZKRO HWKH,QGHPQLILFDWLRQDQG ,QVXUDQFH5HTXLUHPHQWVVHWIRUWKLQWKHVH6SHFLILFDWLRQV,IWKH3URSRVHUWDNHVH[FHSWLRQWR VRPHSRUWLRQVWKRVHSRUWLRQVVKDOOEHOLVWHGKHUHEHORZDQGWKH3URSRVHUVKDOOVLJQWKDWWKH 3URSRVHUDFFHSWVDOOSRUWLRQVRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVQRWOLVWHG 1RWH
$Q\ H[FHSWLRQV PD\ UHQGHU WKH SURSRVDO QRQUHVSRQVLYH
>;@ $&&(37
> @'2 127 $&&(37
,I '2 127$&&(37 LV FKHFNHG SOHDVH OLVW H[FHSWLRQV
6LJQDWXUH RI $XWKRUL]HG 3HUVRQ
7\SH RU 3ULQW 1DPH RI $XWKRUL]HG 3HUVRQ
W
I
$W K L G
3 7UDYLV&UDZIRUG
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Appendix A
Work Samples
-#20)',,3%*-.%
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
Copper River Ranch Project
SCH#2000021003
August 2021
PREPARED BY:
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
PREPARED FOR:
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Dept.
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
-#20)',,3%*-.%
-#20)',,3%*-.%
035-2020-02
Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report
Copper River Ranch Project
SCH#2000021003
Prepared for:
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8044
Contact: Israel Trejo, Supervising Planner
Prepared by:
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
August 2021
-#20)',,3%*-.%
-#20)',,3%*-.%
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ES-6
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose of an EIR 1-3
1.2 Intended Uses of the EIR 1-4
1.3 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies 1-4
1.4 Environmental Review Process 1-5
1.5 Organization and Scope 1-7
1.6 Summary of Comments Received on NOP 1-9
CHAPTER TWO – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting 2-1
2.2 Project Description 2-5
2.3 Project Description Changes from the Notice of Preparation 2-14
2.4 Project Objectives 2-16
2.4 Project Entitlements 2-16
2.6 Other Required Approvals 2-17
CHAPTER THREE – ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3.2-1
3.3 Air Quality 3.3-1
3.4 Biological Resources 3.4-1
3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5-1
3.6 Energy 3.6-1
3.7 Geology and Soils 3.7-1
3.8 Greenhouse Gases 3.8-1
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.9-1
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.10-1
3.11 Land Use and Planning 3.11-1
3.12 Mineral Resources 3.12-1
3.13 Noise 3.13-1
3.14 Population and Housing 3.14-1
3.15 Public Services 3.15-1
3.16 Recreation 3.16-1
3.17 Transportation 3.17-1
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3.18-1
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 3.19-1
3.20 Wildfire 3.20-1
-#20)',,3%*-.%
CHAPTER FOUR – ALTERNATIVES 4-1
CHAPTER FIVE – OTHER CEQA REQUIREMENTS 5-1
CHAPTER SIX – LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 – Regional Map 2-2
2-2 – Vicinity Map 2-3
2-3 – Exhibit Map 2-4
2-4 – Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (1 of 2) 2-12 2-5 – Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (2 of 2) 2-13
3.1-1 – Site photographs 3.1-3
3.1-2 – Site photographs 3.1-3
3.1-3 – Site photographs 3.1-4
3.4-1 – Biological Survey Boundary of the New Development Areas 3.4-3
3.4-2 – Site photographs 3.4-15
3.4-3 – Site photographs 3.4-16
3.4-4 – Site photographs 3.4-16
3.4-2 – Reconnaissance Survey Area Map 3.4-18
3.8-1 – Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in Project Area 3.8-4
3.8-2 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends 3.8-10
3.8-3 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California 3.8-11
3.8-4 – California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target 3.8-69
3.10-1 – Project Area Flood Zones 3.10-32
3.11-1 – Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (1 of 2) 3.11-8
3.11-2 – Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (2 of 2) 3.11-9
3.13-1 – Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites 3.13-15
3.13-2 – Modeled Traffic Noise Receptor Locations 3.13-19
3.16-1 – Existing and Proposed Park Areas / Recreational Facilities 3.16-13
LIST OF TABLES
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ES-6
2-1 Proposed Land Use Changes 2-7
2-2 No Proposed Land Use Changes 2-8
3.3-1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary 3.3-4
3.3-2 Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone 3.3-6
3.3-3 Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution 3.3-9
3.3-4 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 3.3-11
3.3-5 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary 3.3-29
3.3-6 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout 3.3-32
3.3-7 Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction 3.3-44
3.3-8 Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operation 3.3-45
3.3-9 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 3.3-53
3.6-1 Electricity Consumption in Fresno County 2009-2019 3.6-2
3.6-2 Natural Gas Consumption in Fresno County 2009-2019 3.6-3 -#20)',,3%*-.%
3.6-3 Construction Energy Consumption 3.6-13
3.6-4 Operational Energy Consumption 3.6-17
3.8-1 Description of Greenhouse Gases 3.8-6
3.8-2 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.8-43
3.8-3 Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Regulations 3.8-47
3.8-4 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Residential 2026 3.8-49
3.8-5 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Commercial 2028 3.8-50
3.8-6 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Full Project 2028 3.8-51
3.8-7 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Residential 2030 3.8-52
3.8-8 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Commercial 2030 3.8-53
3.8-9 Project Operational Greenhouse Gases Full Project 2030 3.8-54
3.8-10 2017 Scoping Plan Update Estimated Change in GHG Emission by Sector 3.8-56
3.8-11 Consistency with Fresno GHG Reduction Plan 3.8-59
3.8-12 Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan 3.8-62
3.8-13 Consistency with AB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 3.8-72
3.10-1 Demand Per Connection Based on 2020 Meter Data 3.10-24
3.10-2 Total Demand Calculation 3.10-25
3.10-3 Total Demand by Land Use Type (706 Acres) 3.10-25
3.10-4 Total Demand by Land Use Type (109 Acres) 3.10-26
3.10-5 Developed Water Supplies (706 Acres) 3.10-27
3.10-6 Demand and Supply Calculation Summary 3.10-28
3.11-1 Proposed Land Use Changes 3.11-6
3.11-2 No Proposed Land Use Changes 3.11-6
3.11-3 Proposed Land Use Changes / SB 330 Consistency 3.11-13
3.13-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels 3.13-2
3.13-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundbourne Vibration 3.13-5
3.13-3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 3.13-7
3.13-4 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria 3.13-13
3.13-5 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria 3.13-13
3.13-6 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data 3.13-16
3.13-7 Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise, dB, Ldn 3.13-20
3.13-8 Typical Construction Equipment 3.13-22
3.13-9 Typical Vibration Levels During Construction 3.13-23
3.14-1 Proposed Land Use Changes 3.14-6
3.14-2 No Proposed Land Use Changes 3.14-7
3.14-3 Full Buildout Population Estimate 3.14-10
3.14-4 Proposed Land Use Changes / SB 330 Consistency 3.14-12
3.15-1 Full Buildout Population Estimate 3.15-20
3.16-1 Full Buildout Population Estimate 3.16-10
3.16-2 Existing and Proposed Park Areas / Recreational Facilities 3.16-11
3.17-1 Existing Intersection LOS Results 3.17-23
3.17-2 2003 FEIR Project Trip Generation 3.17-24
3.17-3 Current Project Trip Generation Rates (2021) 3.17-25
3.17-4 Comparison of 2003 and 2021 Project Trip Generation 3.17-25
3.17-5 Unbuilt Trip Generation 3.17-26
3.17-6 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results 3.17-27
3.17-7 Near Term Plus Project LOS 3.17-29
3.17-8 Cumulative Year 2035 Plus Project Intersection LOS Results 3.17-31 -#20)',,3%*-.%
3.17-9 2003 FEIR Traffic Mitigation vs. Implemented Improvements 3.17-35
3.17-10 Project Residential / Office VMT Analysis 3.17-40
3.17-11 Project Retail VMT Analysis 3.17-40
3.17-12 Project VMT Mitigation Measures 3.17-43
3.19-1 Demand Per Connection Based on 2020 Meter Data 3.19-25
3.19-2 Total Demand Calculation 3.19-26
3.19-3 Total Demand by Land Use Type (706 Acres) 3.19-26
3.19-4 Total Demand by Land Use Type (109 Acres) 3.19-27
3.19-5 Developed Water Supplies (706 Acres) 3.19-28
3.19-6 Demand and Supply Calculation Summary 3.19-29
APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover)
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation & Comment Letters
Appendix B – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas / Energy Analysis Report Appendix C – Biological Resource Evaluation
Appendix D – Cultural Resource Evaluation
Appendix E – Water Supply Memorandum
Appendix F – Environmental Noise Assessment
Appendix G – Traffic Impact Analysis
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Executive Summary
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Copper River Ranch Project.
Its intent is to inform the public, regulatory agencies and the City of Fresno decision makers of the potential environmental impacts the proposed Project would have on environmental factors as specified in the CEQA Guidelines. This SEIR, in its entirety, addresses and discloses potential environmental effects associated with constructi on and operation of the proposed Project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environmental resources identified in the CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist. The City of Fresno is the “Lead Agency” pursuant to CEQA and is responsible for the preparation and distribution of the SEIR.
Project History and Environmental Background
In January of 2000, Copper River Ranch LLC (original Project Applicant) submitted a General Plan Amendment / Rezoning application to Fresno County. These applications were approved by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in December of 2000 and a Final Program EIR was certified by the Board. In August 2002, the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) included the site within the Sphere of Influence boundary for the City of Fresno. In addition, the site was designated for urban development by the 2025 City of Fresno General Plan.
In 2003, the City of Fresno prepared and certified an EIR (previously referred to herein as the 2003 FEIR) for the Project and the site was annexed into the City. The site has been in a state of development since 2004 and today, there are commercial and single family uses on the site.
The Copper River Ranch Project has been building out / developed since 2004 in general conformance to what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR. However, as development has occurred there have been some minor changes with regard to subdivision layouts, number of units, and some minor changes to locations of commercial/office. In addition, there are approximately 109 acres that were not studied as part of the 2003 FEIR for which the Project Applicant proposes to develop now or in the future. This SEIR includes a full evaluation of the “new” Project areas as well as minor changes to the existing development. Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the changes to the Project.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-2
CEQA Process
The City of Fresno circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an SEIR for the proposed Project on July 31, 2020 for a 30-day public review period to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting (conducted virtually via a “Zoom” meeting) was held on August 20, 2020. No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the SEIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. However, written comment letters were received on the NOP during the 30 -day public review period. Any comment letters that were received are referenced in each environmental topic in Chapter Three of this SEIR, depending on the topic (e.g. the NOP comment letter from the Native American Heritage Commission is referenced in Section 3.5 – Cultural Resources; the NOP comment letter from Caltrans is referenced in Section 3.17 – Transportation; etc.).
The next step in the process is circulation of this SEIR which will be distributed to the public for review and comment for at least 45 days. This EIR is organized as follows:
Executive Summary: Summarizes the analysis contained in the EIR.
Chapter 1 – Introduction: Provides a brief introduction to CEQA and the scope/contents of the DEIR.
Chapter 2 – Project Description: Describes the Project in detail. Includes Project location, objectives, environmental setting and regulatory context.
Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis: Contains the CEQA checklist. Each topic discusses environmental/regulatory setting, Project impact analysis, mitigation measures and conclusions.
Chapter 4 – Alternatives: Describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project. The proposed Project is compared to each alternatives and potential environmental impacts are analyzed.
Chapter 5 – Other CEQA Sections: Describes other required sections such as environmental effects that cannot be avoided, social effects, growth inducement, etc.
Appendices: Following the text of the SEIR, several appendices and technical studies have been included as reference material.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-3
Project Location
The proposed Copper River Ranch Project consists of two areas of development. The first consists of adding approximately 109 acres to the Copper River Ranch development that were not included in the original 2003 Copper River Ranch FEIR. The second consists of proposed land use designation changes within the existing 706.5 acre Copper River Ranch Development.
New Areas of Development
The proposed new areas of development would occur on approximately 109 acres adjacent and east of the existing Copper River Ranch footprint. The new 109-acre development area has been mostly disturbed (graded, disced, or developed) and supports residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation. The proposed new development area is surrounded by resident ial development to the north; residential development, portions of a golf course, and dist urbed land to the south; orchards, residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the west.
Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Map, Figure 2-2: Vicinity Map and Figure 2-3: Exhibit Map for Project location. The area shown with the solid red line in Figure 2-3 depicts the approximately 170.77 acre area that was not included in the evaluation under the 2003 FEIR. The areas shown in red crosshatch are areas that are not included in this current SEIR (approximately 36.85 acres).
The remaining 109 acres is the new area that is being evaluated along with the land use changes within the existing development.
Existing Copper River Ranch Development
The existing Copper River Ranch development area consists of approximately 706.5 acres situated generally between Friant Road, Copper Avenue, Willow Avenue and Silaxo Road. The existing development has been building out / developed since the original EIR was approved in 2003. The area consists of residential housing, commercial establishments, a golf course, parks/trails and related improvements. The proposed changes within the existing development are described in Section 2.2 of Chapter Two – Project Description.
Project Description Summary
The Project Applicant is proposing to modify the existing General Plan designations to reflect both the actual built out conditions of Copper River Ranch today and to identify any proposed -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-4
land use designations and zone districts that ar e planned for the future. The proposed changes to land use designations and zone districts will facilitate various subdivisions of land for residential development. As previously discu ssed, the Copper River Ranch Project has been building out / developed since 2004 in general conformance to what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR. However, as development has occurred there have been some minor changes with regard to subdivision layouts, number of units, and some minor changes to locations of commercial/office. In addition, there are approximately 109 acres that were not studied as part of the 2003 FEIR for which the Project Applicant proposes to develop now or in the future. As such, those areas were included in the evaluation of this SEIR.
The original 2003 FEIR evaluated the impacts of development of up to 2,837 residential units (1,192 single-family units and 1,645 multi-family units). The proposed Project could result in the development of up to 3,216 total housing units within the proposed Development. Thus, the total number of “new” units at full buildout beyond what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR is 379 additional units. The additional 379 units is derived by taking the difference between the 2003 FEIR total buildout (2,837 units) and the proposed number of units (3,216). Although only 379 units are being added to the development, this SEIR evaluates the impacts of all 3,216 units.
Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the Project.
Project Objectives
The following Project objectives were included in the 2003 FEIR and continue to be applicable to the proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the Project objectives:
x To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a complete range of densities, styles, sizes, and values which are designed to satisfy the identified increasing demand of the existing and future population base.
x To provide for commercial and office development sufficient to accommodate the needs of the Project population of the Project.
x To provide for alternative forms of transportation within the Project and connection to regional trail and mass transit systems thereby reducing dependency upon the automobile.
x To provide for a variety of open space opportunities within the Project area. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-5
x To encourage residents to work at home occupations. Promote home occupations through electronic and internet components within the home, home design, and related mixed-use facilities.
x To provide the ability, through flexible zoning conditions, to develop mixed-use projects, which combine a variety of uses on one parcel. x To maximize view opportunities of Project open space features through innovative land use planning techniques.
x To create a strong sense of “community” with landscaping, signage, lighting and Project amenities that are unique to Copper River Ranch.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, it was determined that all impacts were either less than significant, or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of impacts associated with air quality and transportation, which were determ ined to be significant and unavoidable at the cumulative level. Mitigation measures are listed in Table ES-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project.
This EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
x No Development Alternative: Under this Alternative, the unbuilt portions of the site would remain vacant and unoccupied.
x No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed according to the 2003 FEIR and the addition of the 109 acres to the Project would not occur. The additional 109-acre area would also retain its existing land use designations where development could proceed with residential development as identified in the City’s General Plan.
x Increased Project Density: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed with increased residential densities which would result in a greater number of units and an increase in population as compared to the proposed Project. x Reduced Project Density: Under this Alternative, the site would be developed with reduced residential densities which would result in development of fewer number of units and a decrease in population as compared to the proposed Project. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-6
See Chapter 4 – Alternatives for a full description of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during Project impl ementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the Project, a Mitigation Monitoring Program will be included in the Project’s Final EIR and is included herein on the following pages. Where previous mitigation measures from the 2003 FEIR are still applicable to the proposed Project, they are identified and shown using the numbering system from the 2003 FEIR. New or modified mitigation is shown with a lettering system (e.g. BIO – 1, BIO – 2 for Biology, CUL – 1 for Cultural, etc.).
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Aesthetics
AES – 1: The developer shall ensure that the following measures are incorporated in the design of future conditional use permits, tentative tract maps, and site plans:
1. The developer shall incorporate landscape, wall treatment, signage, and architectural standards for the development of residential, commercial, public facility, open space, and mixed-use areas.
2. A minimum 20- foot landscaped area shall parallel the easterly side of Friant Road, the northerly side of Copper Avenue, and the westerly side of Willow Avenue . A berm and/or combination berm/sound wall shall parallel these roadways where residential lots are proposed.
3. Project entries along Copper and Willow Avenues, and along Friant Road, shall incorporate special entry features, such as extensive landscaping and low profile entry signs.
4. Detailed designs of these facilities shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for review. Approval from the City of Fresno shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
AES – 2: Lighting for Street and Parking Areas. 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 l
and uses such as residences.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
operation /
occupancy
City of
Fresno
AES – 3: Lighting for Public and Private Facilities. Lighting systems for public and private facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
operation /
occupancy
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
AES – 4: Lighting for Non-Residential Uses. Lighting systems for nonresidential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
operation /
occupancy
City of
Fresno
AES – 5: Signage Lighting. Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
operation /
occupancy
City of
Fresno
AES – 6: Use of Non-Reflective Materials. Materials used on building facades shall be non-reflective.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
operation /
occupancy
City of
Fresno
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
AG – 1: Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses. In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
x Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
x A Right-to- Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
x Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to- Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Air Quality
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.3.1-a: A Fugitive Dust Prevention and Control Plan shall be developed to specify control methods, demonstrate availability of equipment and personnel, and identify the individual authorized to implement prevention measures. The Plan shall comply with the SJVAPCD Regulation VIII- Fugitive Dust Rules. The Plan shall include the following conditions:
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off- site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing applications of water or by presoaking. d. When materials are transported off-site, all ma terial shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or maintain at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container. e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.
f. Following the addition of mater ials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno and
the SJVAPCD
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-10
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
g. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. h. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
i. Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour.
2.3.1-b: Construction contracts shall include the following provisions:
a. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and operated. b. Alternative-fueled construction equipment shall be used if feasible. c. Hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno and
the SJVAPCD
2.3.2-a: The developer shall be responsible for the following measures to be included as a condition of approval on each conditional use permit, tentative tract map, or site plan:
a. Pedestrian enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include:
sidewalks and pedestrian paths; street trees to shade sidewalks; pedestrian safety designs/infrastructure; street furniture; street lighting; and pedestrian signalization and signage.
b. Bicycle enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include:
bikeways/paths connecting to a bikeway system; and secure bicycle parking.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
app
lication
City of
Fresno and
the SJVAPCD
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-11
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
c. The project shall either contract with Fresno Area Express (FAX) through the City to provide transit services within the project area, or provide an on-site transit service to off-site FAX transit stations/multimodal centers. d. Transit-enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include: transit shelters, benches, etc.; street lighting; route signs and displays; and/or bus turnouts/bulbs.
e. Park and ride lots and/or satellite telecommuting centers shall be provided in the project area.
f. Carpool/vanpool programs shall be implemented, e.g., carpool, ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.
g. On-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc. shall be provided within commercial and office areas.
h. A Transportation Demand Management Program shall be established and include : transit, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic flow improvements, transportation system management, rideshare, telecommuting, video conferencing, and other measures to reduce peak hour vehicle trips.
2.3.2-b: Future construction plans for residential, commercial, office, and public uses shall include:
a. solar or low-emission water heaters.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
City of
Fresno and
the SJVAPCD
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-12
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
b. central water heating systems in commercial areas.
c. Open-hearth fireplaces shall require use of natural gas or installation of low-emission, EPA-certified fireplace inserts.
building
permits
Biological Resources
BIO – 1: Protect nesting Swainson’s Hawk
1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.
2. If it is not possible to schedule work between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for active Swainson’s hawk nests within 0.5 miles of the Project site following methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If an active nest is found within 0.5 miles , and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt nesting, a construction- free buffer or limited operating period shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
and
CDFW
BIO – 2: Protect nesting burrowing owl
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno and
CDFW
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-13
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
2. If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowi ng owl use (e.g., feathers, guano, pellets) is detected on or w ithin 500 feet of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the owl(s), a construction- free buffer, limited operating period, or passive relocation shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.
BIO – 3: Protect Nesting Birds
1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.
2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. A pre- construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction- free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno and
CDFW
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-14
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Should any potentially significant cultural, historical, archaeological or fossil resources be discovered, no further ground disturbance shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director concurs in writing that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources. Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a certified professional archaeologist or paleontologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. If significance c riteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; curate materials with recognized scientific or educational repository; and provide a comprehensive final report as required by Senate Bill 18; California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8); California Public Resources Code Sections 5020-5029.5, 5079-5079.65, 5097.9- 5097.998, and 5097.98; and California State Health and Safety Code, Se ction 7050.5, as applicable.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
/
ongoing
City of
Fresno
CUL-2: If human remains are unearthed during excavation and/or construction activities, all activity shall cease immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b). If the human remains are determined to be of Native American decent, 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 Nat ive 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 City shall ensure that the immediate Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-15
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the City has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(Mitigation Measures from the 20 03 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.10.8-a: Where a storage tank may be located, appropriate sampling shall be performed by a qualified technician to evaluate potential of soil contamination.
Removal of tanks and any contaminated soil shall be accomplished consistent with all applicable regulations of Fresno County.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
building or
grading
permits
City of
Fresno
Hydrology and Water Quality
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.9.1-a: Establish a development fee for the project’s fair share of the City’s surface water treatment plant construction and expansion.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-16
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.9.1-c: Technical water supply information shall be submitted which demonstrates residential and commercial uses and corresponding water requirements.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.1-d: The developer shall commit to plan and maintain on-site recharge basins and lakes to ensure that necessary recharge can be accomplished over the life of the project.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.1-e: The developer shall prepare a water master plan for approval by the City in accordance with City requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.2-a: New wells shall be placed a minimum of 500 feet from the project boundaries where there is an adjoining proximate off -site well, in order to preclude drawdown in off-site wells due to pumpage of new public supply wells in the project. In addition, new public supply wells on the project site shall include a test well and monitoring of a sufficient number of adjoining proximate off-site Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-17
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
wells as determined by the City to determine potential drawdown in the off-site wells. Should adverse effects on adjoining prox imate off- site wells be determined, the public supply wells shall be relocated or otherwise mitigated to preclude such adverse impacts.
application
and building
permits
2.9.2-b: Locate domestic water wells in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report Groundwater Conditions at the Copper River Ranch , prepared by Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, May, 2000.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.2-c: If water yields from adjacent private wells are determined by the City Department of Public Utilities in consultation with the Fresno County Department of Community Health to have been adversely affected by the project, the developer shall improve the private well to standards acceptable to the City, or connect the user to the project water system.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.3-a: Should any existing community water supply well exceed the DBCP MCL as detected in regular monitoring, granular activated carbon treatment or other acceptable technology shall be required to be consistent with CCR Title 22 requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-18
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.9.3-b: Should any existing community water supply well exceed the uranium MCL as detected in regular monitoring, the contaminated well water shall be blended with other on -site groundwater supplies to reduce the contamination level below the MCL at all times. A State DHS -approved blending program shall be implemented to meet this requirement. The effectiveness of the program shall be supported by on
-going monitoring at State- specified frequencies and
locations.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.3-c: Should other contaminants be identified in the future, remediation shall be resolved in accordance with CCR Title 22 requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.4-a: Monitoring groundwater, including nitrogen content, has been proposed as a mitigation measure for this pr oject (see mitigati on for groundwater degradation caused by infiltration of diluted treated effluent, in Section 2.8).
Measurements shall be taken each calendar quarter by City of Fresno personnel or a qualified consultant. Should the monitoring tests exceed nitrogen standards, a denitrification process shall be started at the wastewater treatment facility. The plant design shall incorporate a denitrification process that shall denitrify the treated effluent to the 10 mg/l total nitrogen level.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.6-a: Grading plans shall demonstrate that all areas of irrigated turf or other open space receiving reclaimed water drain away from FMFCD basins, except in extraordinary wet years (10 -year frequency storms) when on- site lakes may fill from stormwater and utilize the FMFCD basins.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-19
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and building
permits
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD – 1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Preven tion Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Perm it for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009- 0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run -on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
HYD – 2A: The Project will implement the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program, including implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The California Water Conservation Act mandates a 20 percent reduction in water usage. The Developer will meet the reduction target with measures applicable to new and existing development. Reductions beyond the state mandated 20 percent are possible with the use of building and landscaping water conservation features. The reductions from buildings can be achieved with Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-20
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
high efficiency toilets, low-flow faucets, and water-efficient appliances such as dishwashers. Water savings from landscaping would be achieved primarily through the use of drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping.
HYD – 2B: The total Project area considered for water supply requirements consists of an original Project area of 706 acres and new Project area of 109 acres.
The City has previously established water supply requirements for the original Project area of 706 acres and memorialized them in a Water Supply Implementation Agreement. For the new Project area, the Developer shall pay the Water Capacity Fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule, for all new connections to the City’s water system.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
HYD – 3: The Project proponent shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare a drainage / grading plan prior to the i ssuance of any grading and/or building permit. The design-level analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno and FMFCD.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
Land Use and Planning
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.1.7-a: The developer shall ensure through the subsequent master permit and associated development plan, that the following measures are incorporated in the design of future plans at the interface with adjacent residential properties:
x All lots shall back onto the common property line on the northern boundary of the project.
x All lots shall be fenced.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-21
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
x All lots along these common property lines shall include a backyard landscaping plan to provide for continuous screening with evergreen and deciduous trees.
Noise
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.6.2-a: Site-specific acoustical analyses, conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant, shall be required when actual lot design is proposed and a grading plan is approved, so that noise attenuation measures can be applied based on specific design, including setbacks, sound walls, and location of non-noise sensitive land uses.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.6.3-a: The developer shall pay a proportionate share, based on contribution to traffic in 2020 as determined in the project -specific traffic study prepared for projects within Copper River Ranch, of the costs of constructing appropriate noise mitigation on Maple Avenue between International Avenue and Copper Avenue.
Noise improvements shall be installed, as necessary, to reduce outdoor levels to 60 dBL or lower.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.6.4-a: Site-specific acoustical analysis, conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant, shall be required when actual design and a grading plan is approved, so that abatement measures can be applied based on specific design, including setbacks, sound walls, and location of non-noise sensitive land uses.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-22
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and building
permits
Noise
NOI – 1:
x Per the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and all day on Sunday.
x All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
x Noise-producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor. x All noise-producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise-sensitive land uses.
x Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise-sensitive land uses.
x Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
during
construction
City of
Fresno
Public Services
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.10.1-a: The developer shall ensure through the subsequent master use permit and associated development plan, that a site for a “community service center” is provided within the project acceptable to the Fresno Police and Fire Departments.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-23
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.10.1-b: Maximize visibility and natural surveillance abilities through the placement and design of physical features including building orientation, windows, entrances and exits, parking lots, walkways, guard gates, low- maintenance landscaping (trees and shrubs ), fences or walls, signage and any other physical obstructions.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
2.10.1-c: Implement design features to clearly identify public/private spaces and to facilitate natural access control and territorial reinforcement, to include, but not limited to, the following measures:
x Identify public entrances and exits through the implementation of sidewalks, pavement, lighting and landscaping to clearly guide the public. x Discourage/prevent public access to and from dark and/or unmonitored areas through the use of fences, walls or landscaping.
x All residential and commercial addresse s shall be clearly visible from the street and shall be illuminated.
x Incorporate access control, including parking lot barriers, fenced rear and side yards, and entry telephones for gated neighborhoods. x Implement exterior nighttime lighting of display areas, parking lots, walkways, entrances and exits. These areas shall be illuminated, at a minimum, one-half hour after sunset and one- half hour before sunrise during hours of operation.
x Incorporate measures that provide off-street parking to discourage auto- related crimes, graffiti-resistant paints and surfaces, and view fences.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
or issuance
of building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.10.1-d: The Fresno Police Department shall be consulted during site planning and subdivision design to ensure that adequate provisions acceptable to the Police Department for crime prevention are designed into the project.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-24
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.10.2-a: The geometric sections of all interior roads shall, at a minimum, be improved to City of Fresno standards to adequately provide for emergency vehicles. Any deviations from the standards shall be accomplished through modifications or exceptions requested at the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map or site plan review stage.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
2.10.2-b: A water supply and distribution system, including fire hydrants, shall be designed and constructed to meet the adopted fire protection standards of the City of Fresno.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.10.2-c: All residential and commercial development shall be provided with fire control systems as required by Fresno Fire Department regulations. The tertiary wastewater treatment facility shall also be provided with a fire control system.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.10.9-a: Following consultation with the developer, PG&E shall provide written verification to the City of Fresno that the Project is phased in keeping with the availability of electric and gas services.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno and
PG&E
Public Services
PUB-1: The Project Applicant shall pay development impact fees for police, fire, schools, recreation and other public services as determined by the City of Fresno.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-25
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
building
permits
REC – 1: A minimum of 28.8 acres of park space shall be provided within the Copper River Ranch Project. As shown on Figure 3.16- 1, the ponding basin is notated as future (optional) open space. Should the ponding basin not be utilized for open space, an alternative location(s) must be provided elsewhere within the Copper River Ranch development in a loca tion(s) approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
Recreation
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.10.5-b: Road improvements shall be made to adequately accommodate vehicle traffic that shall be generated by the parks, recreation and open space uses within the project.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
Recreation
REC – 1: A minimum of 28.8 acres of park space shall be provided within the Copper River Ranch Project. As shown on Figure 3.16- 1, the ponding basin is notated as future (optional) open space. Should the ponding basin not be utilized for open space, an alternative location(s) must be provided elsewhere within the Copper River Ranch development in a location(s) approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
Transportation
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-26
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.2.1-a: If the project is found to trigger a capacity improvement, which otherwise would not be required under the no-project scenario, the project will be required to fully fund (100 percent) of the improvement. Subsequent project- specific studies will determine the need and feasibility of the improvement.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
2.2.1-c: Establish a Transportation Demand Management Program that provides incentives for people both living and working in the project area to utilize some sort of commute alternative such as walking, bicycling, carpool/vanpool, transit, and flex-scheduling.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
Transportation
TRA-1: The Project shall pay into applicable transportation fee programs. These include a Fresno Major Street Impact Fee (FMSI), a Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee (TSMI) and a Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF). The FMSI Fee will be calculated and assessed during the building permit process. The RTMF will be calculated and assessed by Fresno COG.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
or issuance
of building
permits
City of
Fresno
TRA-2: The Project will be responsible for paying its fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommended improvements identified in the Cumulative Year 2035 With Project Scenario subject to reimbursement for the costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable responsibility as determined by the City. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City, prior to Project implementation. The following are the required improvements:
x Friant Road / Willow Avenue
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
or issuance
of building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-27
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
oRemove the northbound left-turn lane;
oModify the inside northbound through lane to a left-through lane; oRemove the southbound left-turn lane;
oModify the inside southbound through lane to a left- through lane; and
oInstall a two-lane roundabout for Friant Ro ad and a single lane for Willow Avenue and Birkhead Avenue. The Roundabout should retain the existing free flow right- turn lane from Willow Avenue to an acceleration lane on northbound Friant Road.
x Willow Avenue / Alicante Drive
oSignalize the intersection with protective left- turn phasing in all directions.
x Willow Avenue / Copper Avenue
o Add a second eastbound left-turn lane;
o Add a second eastbound through lane;
o Add a second westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound through-right lane to through lane; o Add a second westbound through lane;
o Add a westbound right-turn lane;
o Add a second northbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the northbound through-right lane to a through lane; o Add a second northbound through lane with a receiving lane north of Copper Avenue;
o Add a northbound right-turn lane;
o Add a second southbound left-turn lane; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lanes.
x Peach Avenue / Copper Avenue
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-28
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
oAdd an eastbound right-turn lane;
oModify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane; oAdd a westbound left-turn lane;
oModify the westbound left-through lane to a through lane; and oAdd a two-way left-turn lane on the west leg of Peach Avenue.
x Auberry Road / Copper Avenue
oAdd a westbound right-turn lane;
oModify the westbound through-right lane to a through lane; and oModify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lanes.
x Chestnut Avenue / Behymer Avenue
oSignalize the intersection with protective left- turn phasing in all directions.
x Friant Road / Audubon Drive
oModify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing of the westbound right-turn with the southbound left-turn phase; oProhibit southbound to northbound U-turn movements;
oModify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing of the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left-turn phase; oProhibit eastbound to westbound U-turn movements;
oModify the traffic signal to implement overlap phasing of the northbound right-turn with the westbound left-turn phase; and oProhibit westbound to eastbound U-turn movements.
oIt should be noted that given existing constraints and the ultimate designation for six-lanes on Friant Road, the said improvements are not projected to meet the City's target LOS threshold; however, it is projected they will reduce overall delay by an average of 22 -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-29
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
seconds. Therefore, the traffic impacts at this intersection are considered adverse but unavoidable.
x Fresno Street / Friant Road
oGiven existing constraints and the ultimate designation for six- lanes on Friant Road, the number of modifications that can be made at this intersection are limited. JLB analyzed, if implementing an overlap phasing of the northbound right- turn with the westbound left- turn phase; however, it was found that such modifications will result in very low benefit in the reduction of delay while requiring a large number of westbound to eastbound U-turns to be prohibited. As a result, JLB recommends against modifications to this intersection while acknowledging that the City's LOS threshold for this intersection is projected to be exceeded.
x State Route 41 Northbound Off-Ramp / Friant Road
oConsistent with the Fresno General Plan Circulation Element, Friant Road already exists as a six-lane divided arterial between Audubon Drive and Nees Avenue.
oThe Fresno General Plan Circulation Element acknowledged that Friant Road would exceed LOS D as a six- lane facility between Shepherd Avenue and Stat e Route 41 Southbound Off- Ramp and made appropriate findings to designate the maximum number of lanes to three (3) in each direction while exceeding the City's standard LOS threshold for this segment of Friant Road. oThe Caltrans’ State Route 41 TCR also ac knowledged that State Route 41 would exceed LOS D as an eight-lane freeway between El Paso Avenue and the Fresno/Madera County line and made the -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-30
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
appropriate findings to designate LOS F as the LOS threshold for this segment of State Route 41.
City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, make clear that any capacity enhancing transportation projects may have a significant VMT impact and be subject to a detailed analysis that would include measuring induced travel likely requiring infeasible VMT mitigation measures.
Considering the Fresno General Plan Circulation Element, the Caltrans State Route 41 TCR and the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, the traffic impacts at this intersection are considered adverse but unavoidable.
TRA-3: The Project shall incorporate (or take credit for) the following design features to reduce Project-related VMT:
x Incorporate bike lane street design (on-site)
o Within the Project, Class II Bikeways exist along portions of Alicante Drive between Via Livorno Lane and approximately 1,600 feet west of Crest View Drive, Clubhouse Dr ive between Alicante Drive and Queensberry Avenue, Copper River Drive between Friant Ro ad and Maple Avenue and Cedar Avenue between Copper River Drive and Copper Avenue. It is recommended that the Project implement Class II Bikeways within the Project along the remaining lengths of Alicante Drive and Winery Avenue/Road 'G'.
x Orient project towards transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities o This measure applies if a Project is oriented towards a planned or existing transit, bicycle or pedestrian corridor.
o This Project has connections to Class I and Class II Bikeways in the vicinity of the Project along Copper Avenue, Willow Avenue and Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
or issuance
of building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-31
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Shepherd Avenue. Connections also exist to the nearby Lewis S.
Eaton Trail and the Fresno-Clovis Rail-Trail.
o Additionally, all major street improvements have been designed to accommodate transit.
x Provide pedestrian network improvements
o This mitigation measure provides that all the internal components of a Project are connected with each other and the larger off- site network via pedestrian paths to encourage people to walk instead of drive.
o Within the Project site, pedestrian sidewalks exist along built out portions of Alicante Drive, Clubhouse Drive, Copper River Drive, Cedar Avenue and Maple Avenue.
o Adjacent to the Project site, a Class I Bike Path exists along Copper Avenue between Friant Road and Chestnut Avenue. In the vicinity of the Project site, pedestrian sidewalks exist along portions of Friant Road, Willow Avenue, Copper Avenue, Millbrook Avenue, Cedar Avenue, Maple Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, Olympic Avenue,
International Avenue, Behymer Avenue, Sommerville Drive, Audubon Drive, Fresno Street, Blackstone Avenue and Nees Avenue. o Connections also exist to the nearby Lewis S. Eaton Trail and the Fresno-Clovis Rail-Trail via a Class I Bike Path on Copper Avenue.
x Increase destination accessibility
o This mitigation is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time. In this case, it is measured to the downtown Fresno area approximately 11.75 miles away.
x Provide traffic calming measures
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-32
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
o There are four existing rounda bouts and three proposed roundabouts within the Project. Th e four existing roundabouts are located at the intersections of Alicante Drive and Copper River Drive, Alicante Drive and Clubhouse Drive, Crest View Drive and Alicante Drive and Maple Avenue and Copper River Drive. The three proposed roundabouts are located at the future intersections of Road 'G' and New Willow Access Road, Road 'G' and Alicante Drive and Alicante Drive and future internal road. These proposed roundabouts will be completed with the construction of the Project and its internal roads. o Internal roadways are existing with and proposed to contain marked crosswalks, raised median islands, planter strips with street trees and curves. On-street parking and/or NEV lanes exist on stretches of internal roadways as well.
x Increase mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings
o The Project consists of multiple land uses as noted in the trip generation in Table 3.17-3. Included in the land uses are park-n-ride lot, single- family detached housing with multiple densities, apartments, city parks and commercial components.
x Located project near bike path / bike lane
o The Project has several existing bike paths and lanes in the vicinity.
For example, Class II Bikeways exist along portions of Friant Road, Millbrook Avenue, Cedar Avenue, Maple Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, Willow Avenue, Olympic Avenue, International Avenue, Behymer Avenue, Sommerville Drive, Audubon Drive, Fresno Street and Nees Avenue. Similarly , Class I Bikeways exist along portions of Friant Road, Copper Avenue, Willow Avenue, Audubon Drive, Fresno Street and Nees Avenue. Connections also exist to the nearby Lewis S. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-33
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Eaton Trail and the Fresno-Clovis Rail-Trail via a Class I Bike Path on Copper Avenue.
o In addition to this, it was recommended that the Project implement Class I Bikeways along its frontages to Copper Avenue and Willow Avenue. Similarly, it is recommended that the Project implement Class II Bikeways along its frontage to Willow Aven ue, Copper Avenue, Alicante Drive and Road "G".
x Existing park-and-ride lot
o This park-and-ride lot contains 23 parking spots and is located on the southeast corner of Friant Road and Copper Avenue.
Utilities and Service Systems
(Mitigation Measures from the 2003 FEIR that continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project)
2.8.1-a: The developer shall construct and/or pay for all facilities necessary to accommodate the impact of connection to the City sewer system and associated wastewater treatment.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.8.1-b: The design of necessary collection system improvements is subject to approval by the City. All reasonable effort will be made by the developer and the City to design and stage facilities to maximize value and minimize cost.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-34
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and building
permits
2.8.1-d: Treated effluent from the proposed wastewater treatment facility (recycled water) shall be re -used by the project. Land application of recycled water shall be subject to the approval of the City of Fresno and appropriate County and State agencies.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
2.8.2-a: Reclaimed water shall be utilized for golf course or landscape irrigation in designated open space areas. These sites shall be fully described and approved by the RWQCB as part of the preliminary discharge permit and it must be shown by soil testing by a qualified engineer that the sites are capable of handling the entire planned disposal flow.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.8.2-b: The spray irrigation system shall be operated so as to minimize contact with the public. Irrigation shall be scheduled for times when the areas are not in use and all irrigation piping shall be clearly marked as not for potable use. The system shall be operated to minimize aerosols, ponding, and runoff of reclaimed water. Operation of the irrigation system by City of Fresno personnel shall be in accordance with guidelines established by DHS.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.8.2-c: Separation of the reclaimed effluent distribution system and the potable water distribution system shall be assured through use of color-coded pipe.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-35
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Effluent pipelines and hardware shall be appropriately labeled, and backflow prevention devices may be required where a potential cross connection may exist. Minimum separation of potable water and reclaimed water lines shall be as prescribed by City of Fresno and State of California standards.
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
2.8.3-a: The developer shall participate in any necessary collection system enhancements subject to full and satisfactory mitigation by the developer of all potentially significant impacts identified by the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.8.3-b: The developer shall be responsible for all wastewater facility and trunk fees necessary to accommodate the sludge loading.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.8.4-d: Annual nutrient summaries shall be prepared for all turf areas served with reclaimed water. The summaries shall evaluate the needs of the turf, the amount of nutrients applied, and any supplemental fertilizers applied. The amount of treated effluent applied shall be adjusted based on the turf nutrient requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-36
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.8.5-a: The developer shall be responsible for the following mitigation measure to be included as a condition of approval of the conditional use permit for the wastewater treatment plant:
x Monitoring groundwater, including nitrogen content, has been proposed as a mitigation measure for t his project (see above mitigation for groundwater degradation caused by infiltration of diluted treated effluent). Measurements shall be taken each calendar quarter by City of Fresno personnel or a qualified cons ultant. Should the monitoring tests exceed nitrogen standards, a denitrification process shall be started at the wastewater treatment facility. The plant design shall incorporate a denitrification process that shall denitrify the treated effluent to the 10 mg/l total nitrogen level.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Fresno
2.9.1-a: Establish a development fee for the project’s fair share of the City’s surface water treatment plant construction and expansion.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.1-c: Technical water supply information shall be submitted which demonstrates residential and commercial uses and corresponding water requirements.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-37
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.9.1-d: The developer shall commit to plan and maintain on-site recharge basins and lakes to ensure that necessary recharge can be accomplished over the life of the project.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.1-e: The developer shall prepare a water master plan for approval by the City in accordance with City requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.2-a: New wells shall be placed a minimum of 500 feet from the project boundaries where there is an adjoining proximate off -site well, in order to preclude drawdown in off-site wells due to pumpage of new public supply wells in the project. In addition, new public supply wells on the project site shall include a test well and monitoring of a sufficient number of adjoining proximate off-site wells as determined by the City to determine potential drawdown in the off-site wells. Should adverse effects on adjoining prox imate off- site wells be determined, the public supply wells shall be relocated or otherwise mitigated to preclude such adverse impacts.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-38
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
2.9.2-b: Locate domestic water wells in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report Groundwater Conditions at the Copper River Ranch , prepared by Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, May, 2000.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.2-c: If water yields from adjacent private wells are determined by the City Department of Public Utilities in consultation with the Fresno County Department of Community Health to have been adversely affected by the project, the developer shall improve the private well to standards acceptable to the City, or connect the user to the project water system.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.3-a: Should any existing community water supply well exceed the DBCP MCL as detected in regular monitoring, granular activated carbon treatment or other acceptable technology shall be required to be consistent with CCR Title 22 requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.3-b: Should any existing community water supply well exceed the uranium MCL as detected in regular monitoring, the contaminated well water shall be blended with other on -site groundwater supplies to reduce the contamination level below the MCL at all times. A State DHS -approved blending program shall be implemented to meet this requirement. The effectiveness of the program Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-39
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
shall be supported by on-going monitoring at State-specified frequencies and locations.
and building
permits
2.9.3-c: Should other contaminants be identified in the future, remediation shall be resolved in accordance with CCR Title 22 requirements.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.4-a: Monitoring groundwater, including nitrogen content, has been proposed as a mitigation measure for this pr oject (see mitigati on for groundwater degradation caused by infiltration of diluted treated effluent, in Section 2.8).
Measurements shall be taken each calendar quarter by City of Fresno personnel or a qualified consultant. Should the monitoring tests exceed nitrogen standards, a denitrification process shall be started at the wastewater treatment facility. The plant design shall incorporate a denitrification process that shall denitrify the treated effluent to the 10 mg/l total nitrogen level.
Project
Applicant
Ongoing /
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
2.9.6-a: Grading plans shall demonstrate that all areas of irrigated turf or other open space receiving reclaimed water drain away from FMFCD basins, except in extraordinary wet years (10 -year frequency storms) when on- site lakes may fill from stormwater and utilize the FMFCD basins.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
and building
permits
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Executive Summary
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR ES-40
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Utilities and Service Systems
HYD – 2A: The Project will implement the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program, including implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The California Water Conservation Act mandates a 20 percent reduction in water usage. The Developer will meet the reduction target with measures applicable to new and existing development. Reductions beyond the state mandated 20 percent are possible with the use of building and landscaping water conservation features. The reductions from buildings can be achieved with high efficiency toilets, low-flow faucets, and water-efficient appliances such as dishwashers. Water savings from landscaping would be achieved primarily through the use of drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Fresno
HYD – 2B: The total Project area considered for water supply requirements consists of an original Project area of 706 acres and new Project area of 109 acres.
The City has previously established water supply requirements for the original Project area of 706 acres and memorialized them in a Water Supply Implementation Agreement. For the new Project area, the Developer shall pay the Water Capacity Fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule, for all new connections to the City’s water system.
Project
Applicant
Prior to
approval of
land use
entitlement
application
City of
Fresno
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-1
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared as a Subsequent EIR (SEIR or Draft SEIR) to the City of Fresno’s Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse number 2000021003) for the Copper River Ranch Project that was certified by the City in 2003 (2003 FEIR).
The 2003 FEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of up to 2,837 residential units and approximately 250,000 square feet (60 acres) of commercial development on approximately 706.5 acres within the boundary of the original Copper River Ranch development. The Copper River Ranch development is generally situated between Friant Road, Copper Avenue, Willow Avenue and Silaxo Road (alignment) within the City limits of Fresno. This SEIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of changes to the Project description as well as changes to the re gulatory setting and physical environment that have occurred since the 2003 FEIR was certified. The full description of the changes and additions to the Project is included in Chapter Two – Project Description. The City of Fresno is the Lead Agency for this SEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
Project History and Environmental Background
In January of 2000, Copper River Ranch LLC (original Project Applicant) submitted a General Plan Amendment / Rezoning application to Fresno County. These applications were approved by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in December of 2000 and a Final Program EIR was certified by the Board. In August 2002, the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) included the site within the Sphere of Influence boundary for the City of Fresno. In addition, the site was designated for urban development by the 2025 City of Fresno General Plan.
In 2003, the City of Fresno prepared and certified an EIR (previously referred to herein as the 2003 FEIR) for the Project and the site was annexed into the City. The site has been in a state of development since 2004 and today, there are commercial and single family uses on the site.
The Copper River Ranch Project has been building out / developed since 2004 in general conformance to what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR. However, as development has occurred there have been some minor changes with regard to subdivision layouts, number of units, and some minor changes to locations of commercial/office. In addition, there are approximately 109 acres that were not studied as part of the 2003 FEIR for which the Project Applicant proposes to develop now or in the future. As such, those areas will require additional evaluation. This SEIR includes a full evaluation of the “new” Project areas as well as minor changes to the existing -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-2
development. Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the changes to the Project.
CEQA Updates Since Certification of the 2003 FEIR
As discussed herein, the Project was authorized in 2003 and the Project remains substantially built out in conformance to what was environmentally reviewed in 2003. However, in the intervening years, several changes have been made to the CEQA Guidelines, regulatory and statutory requirements, special status species lists, as well as the environmental setting. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist Form was updated to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (March 18, 2010) and include questions related to impacts to tribal cultural resources (September 27, 2016). On December 28, 2018, a comprehensive update to the State CEQA Guidelines became effective, which addressed legislative changes to the CEQA statute, clarified certain portions of the existing CEQA Guidelines, and updated the CEQA Guidelines to be consistent with recent court decisions, including but not limited to the incorporation of energy as new topic addressed by the CEQA Guidelines. The topic of Wildfire was also added to the 2019 CEQA Guidelines as a stand-alone topic. In addition, there have been changes to protected and/or special status species lists (e.g. Valley Elderberry Long-Horned Beetle has been removed, San Joaquin Kit Fox has been added, etc.). This SEIR addresses these changes, minor updates to other environmental topics, and the Project Description modifications.
In addition, this SEIR evaluates the status of the previous 2003 FEIR mitigation measures and their applicability to the proposed Project.
Purpose, Scope and Legal Authority
The Lead Agency has determined that Project modifications or changed circumstances have occurred and/or new information has become available following the previous discretionary approval, and these changes trigger the need for additional environmental review. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency must prepare a Subsequent EIR for a previously- certified EIR when any of the following criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1- 3) would occur:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-3
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
b. Significant effects previously examin ed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Therefore, the City has prepared this Subseque nt EIR for the Project. Refer to Section 1.5 – Organization and Scope for more information pertaining to the contents of the SEIR.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
As previously discussed, the original Copper River Ranch Project environmental impacts were evaluated in the 2003 FEIR prepared by the City of Fresno (EIR No. 10126, State Clearinghouse No. 2000021003). That document and associated findings are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department located at 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721.
1.1 Purpose of an EIR
Preparation of an EIR is required by CEQA prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-4
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).
This Draft SEIR has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project. The Draft SEIR also proposes mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. This Draft SEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the Lead Agency.
An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts.
CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development.
1.2 Intended Uses of the EIR
The City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, has pr epared this SEIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an object ive analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed Project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the Lead Agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, such as economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.
This SEIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the Project. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the Project are identified in Chapter Two, Project Description.
1.3 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies
The term “Responsible Agency” includes all pub lic agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-5
resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). Other than approvals from the City of Fresno, the Project will require various approvals, permits, entitlements and/or coordination (e.g. air quality permits, water quality permits, etc.) as follows:
x Compliance with other federal, state and local requirements such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for a dust control plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. x City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (Water, Sewer and Solid Waste) x Fresno Irrigation District
x Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
x City of Fresno Fire Department
x City of Fresno Public Works Department
x Clovis Unified School District
x Fresno County Environmental Health
x California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
1.4 Environmental Review Process
The review and certification process for the SEIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:
Notice of Preparation
The Lead Agency circulated a Notice of Preparat ion (NOP) of an SEIR for the proposed Project on July 31, 2020 for a 30-day public review period to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting (conducted virtually via a “Zoom” meeting) was held on August 20, 2020. No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the SEIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting.
Draft SEIR
The purpose of a Subsequent EIR is to examine and disclose the impacts of a project when a project has been modified to the extent that it could result in new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in a previous EIR. As such, this SEIR examines the potential impacts of the proposed modifications to the Copper River Ranch Project. Information and analysis from the 2003 FEIR that is relevant to the analysis of the Project modifications is briefly summarized or described rather than repeated. This Subsequent EIR is intended to:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-6
x Address Project modifications (such as the proposed General Plan Amendments and proposed land use changes), changed circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior document was certified, as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; x Address new CEQA requirements, such as greenhouse gas emissions, tribal cultural resources and other CEQA topics that have been added since 2003; x Address new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to proposed Project modifications;
x Recommend mitigation measures to avoid or lessen impacts associated with any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects; and x Update the impact analysis and mitigation measures where conditions have changed since the certification of the 2003 FEIR.
x Evaluate the previous 2003 FEIR mitigation measures to determine their status and applicability to the proposed Project.
An analysis was conducted to compare the proposed Project with the Project analyzed in the 2003 FEIR in order to assess the proposed Project’s consistency with the Project analyzed in the 2003 FEIR and determine which environmental topics warranted further analysis in this Subsequent EIR (see Section 1.5 Organization and Scope).
Upon completion of the Draft SEIR, the Lead Agency will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and will publish/circulate the SEIR to begin the public review period.
Public Notice/Public Review
Concurrent with the NOC, the Lead Agency will provide a public notice of availability for the Draft SEIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the review period for this Draft SEIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft SEIR will be accepted in written form. All comments or questions regarding the Draft SEIR should be addressed to:
Israel Trejo
City of Fresno Planning and Development
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8277
[email protected]
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-7
Responses to Comments/Final EIR
Following the public review period, a Final SEIR will be prepared. The Final SEIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period and to oral comments during such review period.
Certification of the EIR/Project Consideration
The City of Fresno will review and consider the Final SEIR. If the Fresno City Council (Council) finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the Council may certify the Final SEIR in accordance with CEQA. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the standards of adequacy require an EIR to provide a sufficient degree of analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed Project that intelligently take account of environmental consequences.
Upon review and consideration of the Final SEIR, the Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the Project. A decision to approve the proposed Project, for which this SEIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 1509 and a statement of overriding consideration made in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during Project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the SEIR.
1.5 Organization and Scope
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation meas ures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft SEIR is organized in the following manner:
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed Project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the Project’s environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed Project. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-8
Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the proposed Project, the purpose of the en vironmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible ag encies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, identifies the scope and organization of the Draft SEIR, and summarizes the NOP.
Chapter 2.0 – Project Description
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed Project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, subsequent Projects and activities, and a list of related agency action requirements.
Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of environmental topic areas as identified below. The new or updated sections will be organized as follows:
Environmental and Regulatory Setting. Each environmental topic includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it pertains to the topical area as well as a description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the Project.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Each environmental topic includes the thresholds of significance by which impacts are determined, a description of Project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact. Cumulative impacts are also addressed at the end of each impact section.
Each impact topic will contain an analysis of impacts related to the changes in the Project description as described in Chapter Two – Project Description.
As previously described, this SEIR has been prepared because the City determined that changes to and circumstances surrounding the 2003 FEIR have occurred and new information has become available since the City certified the 2003 FEIR. Moreover, the City evaluated the impacts of the proposed updated Project description and determined that impacts of the updated Project were not previously examined in the 2003 FEIR and may be potentially significant. Therefore, in addition to the CEQA Appendix G checklist topics, the following additional checklist questions are addressed for each topic:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-9
o Is the proposed Project within the scope of the 2003 FEIR? o Will the Project cause any additional significant effect on the environment not examined in the 2003 FEIR?
o Is there any new information or project component requiring new analysis? o Did the 2003 FEIR mitigation measures fully address the impacts of the proposed Project? (This includes a discussion/analysis on the current status of 2003 FEIR mitigation measures and their applicability, as well as any new mitigation measures that are required.)
Chapter 4.0 – Project Alternatives
Chapter 4.0 provides a comparative analysis between the merits of the proposed Project and the selected alternatives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the Project.
Chapter 5.0 – Other CEQA-Required Topics
Chapter 5.0 evaluates and describes the following CEQA required topics: growth-inducing effects, significant and irreversible effects, significant and unavoidable impacts, substantial adverse effects on fish, wildlife, and plan species, substantial adverse effects on human beings, and effects not found to be significant.
Chapter 6.0 – Report Preparers
Chapter 6.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the Draft SEIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.
Appendices
This section includes the 2003 FEIR, the Project NOP and technical studies.
1.6 – Summary of Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation Three NOP comment letters were received during the 30-day NOP public review period as follows:
1. Native American Heritage Commission – provided information about the tribal consultation process (AB 52 and SB 18). (August 4, 2020) -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 1-10
2. California Department of Conservation (Geologic Energy Management Division) – the letter indicated that there are no known oil or gas wells identified within the Project boundaries and also provided information pertaining to potential (unknown) underground wells that may be encountered during construction. (August 17, 2020)
3. Fresno County Environmental Health – provided information about the use and handling of potentially hazardous materials and listed potential measures to protect groundwater and to reduce noise impacts. (August 18, 2020)
4. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District – provided information on flood control facilities in the Project area, applicable regulations, and methodologies that should be used when evaluating flood/stormwater impacts associated with the Project. (August 26, 2020)
5. Caltrans – provided methodologies that should be used in the Project traffic analysis and provided recommendations on intersections/roadways to include in the analysis. (August 28, 2020)
6. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – provided the Air District’s list of applicable rules and regulations as well as the methodologies that should be used in the Project air analysis. (August 31, 2020)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-1
Project Description
2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use
As described in Chapter One – Introduction, the proposed Copper River Ranch Project consists of two areas of development. The first consists of adding approximately 109 acres to the Copper River Ranch development that were not included in the original 2003 Copper River Ranch FEIR.
The second consists of proposed land use designation changes within the existing 706.5 acre Copper River Ranch Development.
New Areas of Development
The proposed new areas of development would occur on approximately 109 acres adjacent and east of the existing Copper River Ranch footprint. The new 109-acre development area has been mostly disturbed (graded, disced, or developed) and supports residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation. The proposed new development area is surrounded by resident ial development to the north; residential development, portions of a golf course, and dist urbed land to the south; orchards, residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions o f a g o l f c o u r s e , a n d d i s t u r b e d l a n d t o t h e west.
Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Map, Figure 2-2: Vicinity Map and Figure 2-3: Exhibit Map for Project location. The area shown with the solid red line in Figure 2-3 is the new 109 acres that is being evaluated along with the land use changes within the existing development.
Existing Copper River Ranch Development
The existing Copper River Ranch development area consists of approximately 706.5 acres situated generally between Friant Road, Copper Avenue, Willow Avenue and Silaxo Road. The existing development has been building out / developed since the original EIR was approved in 2003. The area consists of residential housing, commercial establishments, a golf course, parks/trails and related improvements. The proposed changes within the existing development are described in Section 2.2 of this Chapter.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-2
Figure 2-1: Regional Map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-3
Figure 2-2: Vicinity Map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-4
Figure 2-3: Exhibit Map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-5
2.2 Project Description
Environmental Background
The existing Copper River Ranch Development was originally submitted to and approved by the County of Fresno Board of Supervisors in 2000. The Project was designated and zoned for a mixture of uses including commercial, multifamily residential, and single family residential. In 2001, the City of Fresno initiated the update of their General Plan and wanted to include the Copper River Ranch area. Work on the General Plan update was completed, and the Plan was approved in 2002. The Copper River Ranch Project was approved in 2003 by the Fresno City Council, and the area was annexed into the Fresno City limits. The Project has been in a state of development since 2004 and today, there are commercial and residential uses on the Project site.
The City of Fresno prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report (No. 10126) for the Copper River Ranch Project (State Clearinghouse #2000021003), adopted in 2003. That EIR analyzed the impacts of the following:
x 2,837 residential units on 706 acres
x 250,000 square feet of office/commercial (60 acres)
The Copper River Ranch Project has been building out / developed since that time in general conformance to what was analyzed in the 2003 EIR. However, as development has occurred there have been some minor changes with regard to subdivision layouts, number of units, and some minor changes to locations of commercial/office. In addition, there are approximately 170.77 acres that were not studied as part of the 2003 EIR for which the Project Applicant proposes to develop now or in the future approximately 109 acres of the 170.77 acres. As such, those areas required additional environmenta l evaluation, and the SEIR includes a full evaluation of the “new” Project areas as well as all proposed land use changes and associated maps. The remaining approximately 62 acres of the 170.77 acres is not included in this study and is comprised of a hatched area of 36.85 acres and golf course area of 25.08 acres per Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3 also shows the locations of final tract maps, tentative tract maps approved, tentative tract maps in process, site plans in process, and depicts the boundary of “new” Project areas that have been evaluated in this SEIR.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-6
Proposed Project
As described in Chapter One – Introduction, the proposed Copper River Ranch Project consists of two areas of development. The first consists of adding approximately 109 acres to the Copper River Ranch development that were not included in the original 2003 Copper River Ranch EIR.
The second consists of proposed land use designation changes within the existing 706.5-acre Copper River Ranch Development. These Project components are described below.
New Areas of Development
The approximately 109 acres of new development areas are proposed to be developed with a variety of housing types. The breakdown of the approximately 109 acres of new development is shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 and is summarized as follows:
x 11.86 acres of Parcel 14 – existing medium-low density residential with no proposed land use change
x 48.27 acres of Parcel 15 – existing medium-low density residential with no proposed land use change
x 3.6 acres of Parcel 7 – existing medium density residential proposed for low density residential
x 15.16 acres of Tract 6246 (portion) - existing medium-low density residential with no proposed land use change
x 13.79 acres of Tract 6248 (portion) – existing medium density residential with no proposed land use change
x 2.2 acres between holes 3 and 4 – existing medium-low density residential with no proposed land use change
x 13.96 acres of Tract 6087
Existing Copper River Ranch Development
The Applicant is proposing to modify the existing General Plan designations to reflect both the actual built out conditions of Copper River Ranch today and to identify any proposed land use designations and zone districts that are planne d for the future. The proposed changes to the existing land use designations, zoning, and tentative tract maps are shown in Table 2-1 (Proposed Land Use Changes) and Table 2-2 (No Proposed Land Use Changes). These are also depicted in Figure 2-4: Parcel Locations and General Plan Designations (1 of 2) and Figure 2-5:
Parcel Locations and General Plan Designations (2 of 2).
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-7
Table 2-1
Proposed Land Use Changes
Parcel No. Acres Existing Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning Proposed Zoning
1 10.16 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS3
2 4.53 Gen Comm Low DR GC RS3
3 1.17 Comm Comm Low DR CC RS3
4** 2.07 Golf Course Med Low DR OS RS3
5 16.21 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS3
7** 9.22 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS4
9 7.23 Med High DR Med DR RM1 RS5
10*** 0.79 Med High DR Med Low DR RM1 RS3
10*** 2.68 Med High DR Comm Comm RM1 CC
11 7.11 Comm Comm Urban Neighbor CC RM2
12**** 2.68 Comm Comm Med Low DR CC RS3
19 1.06 Comm Comm Urban Neighbor CC RM2
20 0.93 Med DR Urban Neighbor RS5 RM2
Total Acres: 65.84
* See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for parcel locations
** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area. *** Portion of a total 3.47 acres for Parcel 10
**** Portion of a total 9.45 acres for Parcel 12
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-8
Table 2-2
No Proposed Land Use Changes
Parcel No. Acres Existing Land Use
Designation
Existing Zoning
6 6.11 Med DR RS5
8** 28.46 Med Low DR RS4
12*** 6.77 Comm Comm CC
13 32.61 Med DR RS5
14** 11.86 Med Low DR RS4
15** 48.27 Med Low DR RS4
16** 32.59 Med Low DR RS4
17** 12.23 Med Low DR RS4
Total Acres: 178.9
* See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for parcel locations
** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area. *** Portion of a total 9.45 acres for Parcel 12
Summary of Proposed Land Use Changes
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show the locations of the parcels identified in the tables above. The proposed changes/additions to the Copper River Ranch Project will not substantially increase the overall unit count that was originally analyzed in the 2003 FEIR. As previously discussed, the 2003 FEIR evaluated the impacts of development of up to 2,837 residential units (1,192 single-family units and 1,645 multi-family units). The proposed Project could result in the development of up to 3,216 total housing units within the proposed Development. Thus, the total number of “new” units at full buildout beyond what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR is 379 additional units. The additional 379 units is derived by taking the difference between the 2003 FEIR total buildout (2,837 units) and the proposed number of units (3,216). Although only 379 units are being added to the development, this SEIR evaluates the impacts of all 3,216 units.
The changes are summarized as follows:
1. The changes will affect fourteen (14) different parcels, for a total of 65.84 acres.
2. Of the 65.84 total acres, 46.29 acres will have a reduction in residential density. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-9
3. Of the 65.84 total acres, 19.55 acres will be proposed for an increase in residential density.
4. There are eight (8) parcels with no proposed land use changes, which have a total of 178.90 acres.
5. There are 108.84 acres that were not studied as part of the 2003 FEIR study area. The breakdown of that acreage is found on page 2-6.
Density/Number of Lots/Maps
Within the original Copper River Ranch Project area (2003 FEIR study area), the current count (as of Year 2021) of approved single-family residential units is 1,400 (see Figure 2-3) and multi- family family residential is 492.
Based on the tentative tract maps currently submitted for processing as outlined below (or to be submitted), the proposed number of lots outside of the original 2003 FEIR study area is 102 single-family units; the remainder of the proposed lots are within the 2003 FEIR study area. As shown in Figure 2-3, there are 49 single-family units as part of Tract 6246 and 53 single-family units as a part of Tract 6248 that are outside of the original 2003 FEIR study area. In addition, the changes to Parcel 11 will result in additional multi-family units (range of 102 – 191 units), the analysis of which is included in this current SEIR. The remaining acreage outside of the 2003 FEIR study area is not currently proposed to be mapped. Tentative tract maps will be submitted for that area at some time in the future.
The easterly half of Copper River Ranch may be developed with additional blended densities with properties within the westerly half of Copper River Ranch. Any density-transfers will be submitted for approval to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department and as allowed pursuant to a future Planned Development Permit. Calculations will be provided as tracts are developed.
Currently there have been 492 multi-family units conditionally approved on the westerly half of Copper River Ranch. Additional multi-family units are proposed within the easterly half of Copper River Ranch (Parcel 6).
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 depict the parcel locations and General Plan designations within the Project area. A general description of each tract is provided below:
x Tract 6238 – Proposed 47 single-family low density residential lots. It is a total of 15.86 acres with 10.16 acres as medium-density residential (Parcel 1), 4.53 acres as General Commercial (Parcel 2), and 1.17 acres as Community Commercial (Parcel 3). As noted -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-10
on Table 2-1, the General Plan designation proposed for this property is low density residential. The Owner/Applicant processing the tentative tract map is Gary McDonald Homes.
x Tract 6246 – Proposed 146 single-family medium low density residential lots. It is a total of 46.89 acres, with 44.82 acres planned medium low residential and 2.07 acres planned Golf Course (Parcel 4). As noted on Table 2-1, 2.07 acres of this property is proposed to be amended to medium-low density residential. The Owner/Applicant processing the tentative tract map is Gary McDonald Homes.
x Tract 6250 – Proposed 52 single-family low density residential lots. It is currently 16.21 acres of medium-density residential (Parcel 5). As noted on Table 1, the General Plan designation proposed for this property is low density residential. The Owner/Applicant processing the tentative tract map is Granville Homes.
x Parcel 6 (Tract 6311) – Proposed 6.11 acres of medium-density residential. The Owner/Applicant processing the map is Granville Homes.
x Tract 6248 – Proposed 28.46 acres as medium-low density residential (Parcel 8). The Owner/Applicant processing the site plan is Granville Homes.
x Tract 6269 – Proposed 273 single-family medium-density residential lots within 39.84 acres with 32.61 as medium-density residential (Parcel 13) and 7.23 acres as medium- high density residential (Parcel 9). As noted on Table 2-1, 7.23 acres of this property is proposed to be amended to medium-density residential. The Owner/Applicant processing the tentative tract map is Wathen Castanos Homes.
x Parcel 11 (Portion of Outlot K) – Proposed multi-family units on 7.11 acres. Apartments would occupy 3.9 acres and duplexes would occupy 2.45 acres for a total unit density of between 102 and 191 units total. The southerly portion of Outlot K (shown as Parcel 18) will remain designated for commercial uses and is proposed for 33,000 square feet of commercial.
There are currently no maps for Parcels 10, 14, and 15. In addition to the tract maps above, this CEQA document analyzes future development on said parcels which are both within and outside the 2003 FEIR study area. Currently there is not an approved conceptual alignment for -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-11
Road G (north) which would potentially extend from the intersection of Winery Avenue (Road G) and Alicante Drive, north to Parcels 14 and 15, with anticipated exit/entrance to Willow Avenue subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Winery Avenue (Road G) south of Alicante Drive is a 13 ft wide lane in each direction with 7 ft wide shoulders. It is anticipated the conceptual alignment for Road G will be developed with the future tentative tract maps in Parcels 14 and 15 and will be analyzed at that time.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-12
Figure 2-4: Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (1 of 2)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-13
Figure 2-5: Parcel Locations and General Plan Land Use Designations (2 of 2)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-14
2.3 Project Description Changes from the Notice of Preparation
The proposed Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) (See Appendix A) that was released for public review in August 2020 included a general description of the proposed Project. Since that time, minor changes were made to the Project description. These minor changes are noted below and are shown in tracked changes. Strikethrough text means the text was removed and Underlined text means the text was added. The changes pertain to parcels 6, 8, 10 and 12.
Parcels 6 and 8 are no longer being proposed for land use designation changes (they will retain their existing land use designations); a portion of Parcel 10 is proposed to be converted to commercial uses instead of residential; and a portion of Parcel 12 is proposed to be converted to residential instead of commercial. These minor changes are reflected in this SEIR in Section 2.2 herein. These changes are not considered a significant change under CEQA because the information was not changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the environmental effect of the Project. Therefore, the NOP was not recirculated for public comment. The proposed Project, as described in Section 2.2 is the Project Description that is used for the environmental analysis herein.
The NOP Project Description is presented in its entirety below, with changes noted. “The Project Applicant is proposing to modify the existing General Plan designations to reflect both the actual built out conditions of Copper River Ranch today and to identify any proposed land use designations and zone districts that are planned for the future. The list of proposed changes to the existing land use designations, zoning, and tentative tract maps is shown in the following tables:
Proposed Land Use Changes
Parcel No. Acres Existing Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
1 10.16 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS3
2 4.53 Gen Comm Low DR GC RS3
3 1.17 Comm Comm Low DR CC RS3
4** 2.07 Golf Course Med Low DR OS RS3
5 16.21 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS3
6 6.11 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS3
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-15
7** 9.22 Med DR Low DR RS5 RS4
8** 28.46 Med Low DR Low DR RS4 RS3
9 7.23 Med High DR Med DR RM1 RS5
10*** 3.470.79 Med High DR Comm CommMed
Low DR RM1 CCRS3
10*** 2.68 Med High DR Comm Comm RM1 CC
11 7.11 Comm Comm Urban Neighbor CC RM2
12**** 2.68 Comm Comm Med Low DR CC RS3
19 1.06 Comm Comm Urban Neighbor CC RM2
20 0.93 Med DR Urban Neighbor RS5 RM2
Total Acres: 97.7365.84
* See Figures 1 and 2 for parcel locations / ** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area. * See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for parcel locations
** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area. *** Portion of a total 3.47 acres for Parcel 10
**** Portion of a total 9.45 acres for Parcel 12
No Proposed Land Use Changes
Parcel No. Acres Existing Land Use
Designation
Existing Zoning
6 6.11 Med DR RS5
8** 28.46 Med Low DR RS4
12*** 9.456.77 Comm Comm CC
13 32.61 Med DR RS5
14** 11.86 Med Low DR RS4
15** 48.27 Med Low DR RS4
16** 32.59 Med Low DR RS4
17** 12.23 Med Low DR RS4
Total Acres: 147.01178.90
* See Figures 1 and 2 for parcel locations / ** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-16
* See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for parcel locations
** Portions not within the original 2003 EIR study area. *** Portion of a total 9.45 acres for Parcel 12”
2.4 Project Objectives
The following Project objectives were included in the 2003 FEIR and continue to be applicable to the proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the Project objectives:
x To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a complete range of densities, styles, sizes, and values which are designed to satisfy the identified increasing demand of the existing and future population base.
x To provide for commercial and office development sufficient to accommodate the needs of the Project population of the Project.
x To provide for alternative forms of transportation within the Project and connection to regional trail and mass transit systems thereby reducing dependency upon the automobile.
x To provide for a variety of open space opportunities within the Project area. x To encourage residents to work at home occupations. Promote home occupations through electronic and internet components within the home, home design, and related mixed-use facilities.
x To provide the ability, through flexible zoning conditions, to develop mixed-use projects, which combine a variety of uses on one parcel. x To maximize view opportunities of Project open space features through innovative land use planning techniques.
x To create a strong sense of “community” with landscaping, signage, lighting and Project amenities that are unique to Copper River Ranch.
2.5 Proposed Entitlements
In support of the proposed Project, the Project Applicant is seeking the following entitlements from the City of Fresno:
x General Plan Amendments associated with the proposed land use changes described in Table 2-1 herein.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 2-17
x Zone Designation changes associated with the proposed land use changes described in Table 2-1 herein.
x Tentative Tract Maps
x Final Tract Maps
x Community Facilities District for maintenance of the public green spaces. x Grading and building permits.
2.6 Other Required Approvals
The Project will require various regulatory approvals, permits, entitlements and/or coordination with agencies as follows:
x Certification of the Final SEIR by the City of Fresno. x Compliance with other federal, state and local requirements such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for a dust control plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. x City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities – Solid Waste x Fresno Irrigation District
x Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
x City of Fresno Police Department
x City of Fresno Fire Department
x City of Fresno Public Works Department
x Clovis Unified School District
x Fresno County Environmental Health
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,
IMPACTS & MITIGATION
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-1
3.1 Aesthetics
This section of the SEIR examines visual resources in the proposed Project vicinity and potential impacts the Project may have on the aesthetic character of the landscape. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.
Determination of Adequacy of 2003 FEIR
The original Copper River Ranch Project 2003 FEIR evaluated potential impacts to aesthetics associated with development of up to 2,837 residential units and approximately 250,000 square feet (60 acres) of commercial development on approximately 706.5 acres. The 2003 FEIR determined that the original Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on aesthetic resources (Section 2.11, pages 2.11.1 – 2.11.3 of the 2003 FEIR) and included mitigation measures to reduce the impact (Section 2.11, pages 2.11-3 and 2.11-3). However, the Project Applicant is proposing to add an additional 109 acres to the de velopment located adjacent to and east of the existing Copper River Ranch Project. The Project also proposes some land use changes within the existing Copper River Ranch development. Since the Project is proposing an additional 109 acres to the development as well as changes to some land uses to the existing development, additional information is being provided herein regarding impacts to aesthetic resources. Therefore, the following determinations are made:
Topic
Further
Analysis
Required?
2003 FEIR
Analysis
Sufficient?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 9 b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
9
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?
9
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-2
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
9
Environmental Setting
Project Site
The Project proposes to develop the remaining unbuilt portions of the existing 706-acre Copper River Ranch Development and to add approximately 109 acres that are proposed to be developed immediately adjacent to and east of the existing development. The existing 706-acre Copper River Ranch Development includes a combination of residential land uses (both single- and multi- family) and a variety of non-residential land uses including a golf course, office and commercial land uses. The existing development has been largely developed with urban uses. The proposed additional 109 acres is located adjacent to and east of the existing development. Elevations of the proposed new development area range from 340 to 400 feet above sea level. The new 109-acre development area has been mostly disturbed (graded, disced, or developed) and supports residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation. The proposed new development area is surrounded by residential development to the north; residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the south; orchards, residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the west.
Representative photographs of the Project area are shown in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-3
Figure 3.1-1. Photograph of the Project site, looking west, showing a gated residential development.
Figure 3.1-2. Photograph of the Project site, looking northeast, showing a manicured golf course. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-4
Figure 3.1-3. Photograph of the Project site, looking east, showing disturbed land cover and an adjacent orchard.
Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista is viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality; (2) sensitivity level; and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas are accessible from public vantage points.
The City’s General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the City’s Planning Area or the proposed Project footprint. Although no scenic vista has been designated, 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 City’s 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. Distant views of the San Joaquin River and areas north of the river can be seen from the ri ver bluffs. However, the majority of these views are from private property. Partially obstructed views of the San Joaquin River can be seen from -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-5
Weber Avenue, Milburn Avenue, McCampbell Dr ive, Valentine Avenue, Palm Avenue, State Route 41, Friant Road, and Woodward Park. Additionally, there are several locations throughout the eastern portion of the City’s Planning Area that provide distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills. It should be noted that these distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills are impeded many days during the year by the poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 1 Due to
intervening land uses and existing topography, the proposed Project will not impact any protected scenic vistas.
Scenic Corridors
Scenic corridors are channels that facilitate movement (primarily by automobile, transit, bicycle, or foot) from one location to another with expansive views of natural landscapes and visually attractive man-made development. Scenic corridors analyzed under CEQA typically include State-designated scenic highways.
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no eligible or officially-designated State Scenic Highways within the Project area. However, Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of SR 180 (located over 15 miles southeast of the Project area) and a portion of SR 168 (located over 5 miles east of the Project area). The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the Project area within the county of Madera.
2 Light and Glare
A light source is a device that produces illumination, including incandescent bulbs, fluorescent and neon tubes, halogen and other vapor lamps, and reflecting surfaces or refractors incorporated into a lighting fixture. Any translucent enclosure of a light source is considered to be part of the light source. Glare is defined as a continuous or periodic intense light that may cause eye discomfort or be temporarily blinding to humans.
The proposed Project is within the existing City limits in an urbanized area and is characterized by significant sources of light and glare, including streetlights, vehicle lights, lighting within
1 City of Fresno General Plan EIR (2020), page 4.1-3.
2 City of Fresno General Plan EIR (2020), page 4.1-4.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-6
parking lots, interior lights from buildings, lighting associated with recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings throughout the Project area.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the proposed Project.
State of California Regulations
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
The Caltrans Scenic Highway Program protects the natural scenic beauty of the State’s highways and corridors through its designated scenic highways throughout the State. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Other considerations given to a scenic highway designation include how much of the natural landscape a traveler may see and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor. As stated previously, there are no eligible or officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City’s Planning Area.
California Code, Public Resources Code Section 21099
PRC Section 21099 requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, which are areas within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. Such criteria should promote a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Within transit priority areas, aesthetic impacts related to residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site would not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
Local Regulations
City of Fresno Development Code
The City’s Development Code (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) is intended to provide a guide for the physical development of the City in order to achieve the arrangement of land uses -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-7
depicted in the approved General Plan, as well as implement goals, objectives, and policies of the approved General Plan. Among the aspects of development regulated by the Municipal Code are types of allowable land uses, setback and height requirements, landscaping, walls, fencing, signage, access, parking requirements, storage areas, and trash enclosures. Article 25, Performance Standards, of the Zoning Ordinance includes standards related to lighting and glare.
City of Fresno General Plan
The following is a summary of the applicable policies included in the City’s General Plan that are related to aesthetic resources and applicable to the proposed Project.
Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element
Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of transit-oriented, mixed use corridors and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.
Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Policy UF-1-f: Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.
Policy UF-12-g: Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Establish design standards and buffering requirements for high-intensity Activity Centers to protect surrounding residential uses from increased impacts from traffic noise and vehicle emissions, visual intrusion, interruption of view and air movement, and encroachment upon solar access. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-8
Policy UF-13-a: Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element.
Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestri an-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Objective LU-1. Establish a comprehensive citywide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment.
Policy LU-1-a: Promote Development within the Existing City Limits as of December 31, 2012. Promote new development, infill, and rehabilitation of existing building stock in the Downtown Planning Area, along BRT corridors, in established neighborhoods generally south of Herndon Avenue, and on other infill sites and vacant land within the City.
Policy LU-1-b: Land Use Definition and Compatibility. Include zoning districts and standards in the Development Code that provide for the General Plan land use designations and create appropriate transitions or buffers between new development with existing uses, taking into consideration the health and safety of the community.
Objective LU-2. Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.
Policy LU-2-c: Infill Design Toolkit. Develop and distribute an infill design toolkit, consistent with the City's Infill Development Act to support and encourage infill development.
Policy LU-2-e: Neighborhood Preservation. Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the existing residential quality of established neighborhoods.
Policy LU-4-a: Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement. Continue proactive and responsive code enforcement and nuisance abatement pr ograms to improve the attractiveness of residential neighborhoods.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-9
Policy LU-5-g: Scale and Character of New Development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes.
Policy LU-6-a: Design of Commercial Development. Foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities in new development with uses through the consideration of guidelines, regulations and design review procedures.
Policy LU-6-b: Commercial Development Guidelines. Consider adopting commercial development guidelines to assure high quality design and site planning for large commercial developments, consistent with the Urban Form policies of this Plan.
Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of this Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhoods and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
x Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place; and x Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.
Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses, noise, glare, odors, and dust.
Objective D-1. Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.
Policy D-1-d: Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.
Policy D-1-e: Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno's cultural heritage and artistic values. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-10
Policy D-1-h: Screening of Parking. Consider requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corrid ors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new non-residential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.
Objective D-3. Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.
Policy D-3-a: Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well-balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree-deficient Arterial Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.
Policy D-3-b: Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.
Policy D-3-c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as "urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian spaces.
Policy D-3-d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.
Objective D-4. Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.
Policy D-4-f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new nonresidential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and services.
Objective D-5. Maintain and improve community appearance through programs that prevent and abate blighting influences.
Policy D-5-a: Code Enforcement. Continue enforcement of the Fresno Municipal Code to remove or abate public nuisances in a timely manner.
Policy D-5-b: Clean Streets. Promote community partnerships and continued City efforts toward litter clean-up and abatement of trash stockpiles on public and private streets. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-11
Policy D-5-c: Facade Improvements. Pursue funding for, and support of, building façade improvement programs.
Policy D-5-d: Graffiti Prevention and Abatement. Seek ways to end graffiti, continue and expand the City's effective Graffiti Abatement Program.
Policy D-6-b: Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally-specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.
Mobility and Transportation Element
Objective MT-3. Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations.
Policy MT-3-a: Scenic Corridors. Implement measures to preserve and enhance scenic qualities along scenic corridors or boulevards, including:
x Van Ness Boulevard - Weldon to Shaw Avenues
x Van Ness Extension - Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff x Kearney Boulevard - Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
x Van Ness/Fulton couplet - Weldon Avenue to Divisadero x Butler Avenue - Peach to Fowler Avenues
x Minnewawa Avenue - Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
x Huntington Boulevard - First Street to Cedar Avenue
x Shepherd Avenue - Friant Road to Willow Avenue
x Audubon Drive - Blackstone to Herndon Avenues
x Friant Road - Audubon to Millerton Roads
x Tulare Avenue - Sunnyside to Armstrong Avenues
x Ashlan Avenue- Palm to Maroa Avenues
Policy MT-3-b. Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards.
Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety.
Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element
Policy POSS-7-f: River Bluffs. Preserve the river bluffs as a unique geological feature in the San Joaquin Valley by maintaining and enforcing the requirements of the "BP" Bluff -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-12
Preservation Overlay Zone District, maintaining the bluff area setback for buildings, structures, decks, pools and spas (which may be above or below grade), fencing, and steps, and maintaining designated vista points.
x Strive to assure that development of the parkway and other uses within the San Joaquin riverbottom environs are consistent with the mineral resources conservation zones; honor flood, environmental, recreational and aesthetic issues; protect natural habitats and historic resources; and consider adjacent property owners. x Take an active role in establishing park entrances. Provide all gates, trails and roads adequate access by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances. x For safety reasons, access may be limited to points that have controlled access gates.
Cooperation of private parties having legal control of riverbottom access shall be sought in this effort.
x Continue to work toward the adoption of official plan lines for new segments of the San Joaquin River Trails and actively pursue completion of these segments to ensure that adequate and appropriate public access to the San Joaquin River and the Parkway is provided.
x Refer to Policy NS-2-d (Chapter 9, Noise and Safety) for additional information for sites within the BP Overlay District.
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. o Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? o Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o 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 regulations governing scenic quality?
o Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-13
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The San Joaquin River and the Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resources in the Project area.
The City’s General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the City’s Planning Area or the proposed Project footprint. Although no scenic vista has been designated, 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 City’s 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. Distant views of the San Joaquin River and areas north of the river can be seen from the river bluffs. However, the majority of these views are from private property. Partially obstructed views of the San Joaquin River can be seen from Weber Avenue, Milburn Avenue, McCampbell Dr ive, Valentine Avenue, Palm Avenue, State Route 41, Friant Road, and Woodward Park. Additionally, there are several locations throughout the Project area that provide distant views of the Sierra Nevada foothills.
The Project is separated from the San Joaquin River by intervening land uses including Friant Road, agricultural lands, a mining facility, and public lands. All development of the unbuilt areas within the existing 706-acre Copper River Ranch Development and development of the additional 109 acres will occur south and southeast of Friant Ro ad and will no t involve development that is closer to the San Joaquin River than what was analyzed in the 2003 FEIR.
Views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of th e nature of the Project, distance and limited visibility of these features. The City of Fresno does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected.”
The Project site is within a developing area of Fresno. There are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site that would be significantly impacted by the Project.
Visual character of the site is addressed further in Response 3.1-3 below.
Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-14
Impact 3.1-2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no eligible or officially-designated State Scenic Highways within the Project area. However, Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways include a portion of SR 180 (located over 15 miles southeast of the Project area) and a portion of SR 168 (located over 5 miles east of the Project area).
The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is located more than 30 miles northeast of the Project area within the county of Madera.
3 Therefore, since there are no state scenic highways in the immediate Project area, the Project has a less than significant impact on state scenic highways.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Impact 3.1-3: 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 regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed Project is located in an area that has been substantially urbanized. The vacant la nds associated with the proposed Project have generally been disturbed through grading and disking and consist primarily of bare ground with little vegetation. Implementation of the proposed Project will alter the visual character of the Project site from vacant/disturbed land to urban development. Although this land use conversion could be perceived by some as a negative aesthetic impact in comparison with the Project site’s current partially developed appearance, based upon the subjective nature of aesthetics, the City does not anticipate that the development of the proposed Project with urban uses will create a visually degraded character or quality to the Project site or to the properties near and around the Project site. The Project will be built out with similar visual characteristics of the existing Copper River Ranch Development and will not introduce new land uses to the area that aren’t already occurring.
3 City of Fresno General Plan EIR (2020), page 4.1-4.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-15
The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, interior street design, lighting, parking and signage. This includes landscaping easements that will run along the frontage of the development and additional landscaping design will accompany the proposed park spaces and bicycle/pedestrian trails. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.
The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large City urban areas and are generally expected from residents of the City. These improvements would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area and would not diminish the visual quality of the area, as they would be consistent with the existing visual setting and development patterns in the area. The Project itself is not visually imposing against the scale of the existing development and nature of the surrounding area. The 2003 FEIR contained mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts, which is applicable to the proposed Project and is included as Mitigation Measure AES-1 below (Note: Item #4 in Mitigation Measure AES-1 was not included in the 2003 FEIR, but has been revised as a re sult of this SEIR an d will be implemented as revised.). Therefore, with mitigation, the Project would have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the area.
Mitigation Measures:
AES – 1 The developer shall ensure that the following measures are incorporated in the design of future conditional use permits, tentative tract maps, and site plans:
1. The developer shall incorporate landscape, wall treatment, signage, and architectural standards for the development of residential, commercial, public facility, open space, and mixed-use areas.
2. A minimum 20-foot landscaped area shall parallel the easterly side of Friant Road, the northerly side of Copper Avenue, and the westerly side of Willow Avenue. A berm and/or combination berm/sound wall shall parallel these roadways where residential lots are proposed.
3. Project entries along Copper and Willow Avenues, and along Friant Road, shall incorporate special entry features, such as extensive landscaping and low profile entry signs.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-16
4. Detailed designs of these facilities shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for review. Approval from the City of Fresno shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.
Impact 3.1-4 : Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The existing Copper River Ranch Development and surrounding areas currently produce light and glare from streetlights, residential lights, commercial security lighting and vehicle lights. Additional night lighting sources associated with the proposed Project, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that could impact surrounding adjacent residential uses. This would create new sources of light that could potentially have a significant
impact on nighttime light levels in the area. During the entitlement process, staff will ensure that lights are located in areas that will minimize light sources to the neighboring properties. Further, Mitigation Measures from the City’s General Plan MEIR require lighting systems to be shielded to direct light to ground surfaces and orient light away from adjacent properties and requires use of non-reflective building materials to reduce glare impacts.
In addition, a condition of approval will require that lighting, where provided for public streets, shall be hooded and so arranged and controlled so as not to cause a nuisance either to traffic or to the living environment. The amount of light shall be provided according to the standards of the Department of Public Works. As a result, the Project will implement the necessary mitigation measures and will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
Mitigation Measures:
AES – 2 Lighting for Street and Parking Areas. 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 – 3 Lighting for Public and Private Facilities. Lighting systems for public and private facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-17
AES – 4 Lighting for Non-Residential Uses. Lighting systems for nonresidential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.
AES – 5 Signage Lighting. Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.
AES – 6 Use of Non-Reflective Materials. Materials used on building facades shall be non-reflective.
Applicability of 2003 FEIR Mitigation Measures
As discussed above, the 2003 FEIR provided the mitigation measures related to aesthetics. The determination of the applicability of those mitigation measures is as follows:
2003 FEIR Mitigation Determination New Mitigation (if applicable) The developer shall ensure that
the following measures are
incorporated in the design of
future conditional use permits,
tentative tract maps, and site
plans:
2.11.1-a: The developer shall
incorporate landscape, wall
treatment, signage, and
architectural standards for the
development of residential,
commercial, public facility, open
space, and mixed
-use areas.
Mitigation Measures 2.11.1-a,
2.11.1-b, and 2.11.1-c from
the 2003 FEIR are still
applicable to the proposed
Project. However, these
mitigation measures have
been grouped and
augmented with an additional
component as shown in
Mitigat
ion Measure AES – 1.
This mitigation measure,
along with additional
mitigation measures from the
City’s current General Plan
EIR (pertaining to light/glare)
AES – 1: The developer shall ensure
that the following measures are
incorporated in the design of
future conditional use permits,
tentative tract maps, and site
plans:
1. The developer shall
incorporate landscape, wall
treatment, signage, and
architectural standards for the
development of residential,
commercial,
public facility, open
space, and mixed-use areas.
2. A minimum 20- foot
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-18
2.11.1-b: A minimum 20-foot
landscaped area shall parallel the
easterly side of Friant Road, the
northerly side of Copper Avenue,
and the westerly side of Willow
Avenue. A berm and/or
combination berm/sound wall
shall parallel these roadways
where residential lots are
proposed.
2.11.1-c: Project entries along
Copper and Willow Avenues,
and along Friant Road, shall
incorporate special entry
features, such as extensive
landscaping and low profile
entry signs.
will be required for the
Project.
landscaped area shall parallel the
easterly side of Friant Road, the
northerly side of Copper Avenue,
and the westerly side of Willow
Avenue. A berm and/or
combination berm/sound wall
shall parallel these roadways
where residential lots are
proposed.
3. Project entries along
Copper and Willow Avenues, and
along Friant Road, shall
incorporate special entry features,
such as extensive landscaping and
low profile entry signs.
4. Detailed designs of these
facilities shall be submitted to the
City of Fresno Planning and
Development Department for
review. Approval from the City of
Fresno
shall be required prior to
issuance of any building permits.
AES – 2: Lighting for Street and
Parking Areas. 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 – 3: Lighting for Public and
Private Facilities. Lighting systems
for public and private facilities such
as active play areas shall provide
adequate illumination for the
activity; however, low intensity
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-19
light fixtures and shields shall be
used to minimize spillover light
onto adjacent properties.
AES – 4: Lighting for Non-
Residential Uses. Lighting systems
for nonresidential uses, not
including public facilities, shall
provide shields on the light
fixtures and orient the lighting
system away from adjacent
properties. Low intensity light
fixtures shall also be used if
excessive spillover light onto
adjacent properties will occur.
AES – 5: Signage Lighting. Lighting
systems for freestanding signs
shall not exceed 100 foot
Lamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to
streets which have an average
light intensity of less than 2.0
horizontal footcandles and sh
all
not exceed 500 FT-L when
adjacent to streets which have an
average light intensity of 2.0
horizontal footcandles or greater.
AES
– 6: Use of Non-Reflective
Materials. Materials used on
building facades shall be non-
reflective.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.1-20
Cumulative Impacts
The scope for considering cumulative impacts to aesthetics and visual resources are the geographic areas covered by the City of Fresno General Plan / EIR and the County of Fresno General Plan / EIR. Mitigation measures associat ed with this topic are included to ensure that potential impacts to aesthetics remains less than significant at a project level. The landscape in north-central Fresno County has been changing over the years from one of predominately rural open space and agricultural grazing land to urba n uses. The cities of Fresno and Clovis have been rapidly growing to the north and northwest, contributing to the landscape change. Several land development proposals envisioned by the City of Fresno, City of Clovis and Fresno County general plans and individual project proposals have received their entitlements, or are seeking them. Although the urban environment that is ultimately built could be aesthetically pleasing to many, these cumulative changes will significantly degrade the existing visual character and quality of the area. Based on the standards of significance, the proposed Project individually would have a less than significant aesthetic impact as concluded in Section 3.1 of this SEIR.
However, ultimate impacts of the proposed Project in combination with other projects in the area are significant, and the Project’s incrementa l contribution to this impact is itself cumulatively considerable and thus significant. This impact cannot be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable level and is unavoidable.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-1
3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
This section of the SEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to Agricultural and Forestry Resources. No NOP comme nt letters were received pertaining to this topic.
Determination of Adequacy of 2003 FEIR
The original Copper River Ranch Project 2003 FEIR identified that Project implementation would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land and recognized that it was a significant and unavoidable impact (pages 2.1.8 – 2.1.19 of the 2003 FEIR). At that time, the original Copper River Ranch project resulted in the conversion of approximately 70 acres of Thompson grapes, 180 acres of wine grapes, five acres of oranges and 150 acres of dry farmed grassland. In addition, the City’s General Plan Master EIR (2014) evaluated the loss of agricultural lands associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan (including the proposed Project areas)
1 . The Project Applicant is proposing to add an additional 109 acres to the development located adjacent to and east of the existing Copper River Ranch Project. However, the additional 109 acres has already been designated by the City of Fresno General Plan for urban uses and will not result in the loss of additional agricultural lands beyond what was analyzed in the City’s General Plan Master EIR (2014) and the 2003 Copper River Ranch FEIR.
Although the proposed Project will not result in additional agricultural impacts, supplemental information is being provided herein regarding impacts to agricultural resources. Therefore, the following determinations are made:
Topic
Further
Analysis
Required?
2003 FEIR
Analysis
Sufficient?
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?
9
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 9
1 Fresno General Plan Draft Master EIR (2014), pages 5.2-11 through 5.2-13. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-2
Williamson Act contract?
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))?
9
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
9
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?
9
Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Fresno, in an area dominated by urban land uses. The existing 706-acre Copper River Ranch Development includes a combination of residential land uses (both single- and multi-family) and a variety of non- residential land uses including a golf course, office and commercial land uses. The existing development has been largely built out and there are no lands designated for agricultural or forestry purposes within the site.
The new 109-acre development area has been mostly disturbed (graded, disced, or developed) and supports residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation. The proposed new development area is surrounded by residential development to the north; residentia l development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the south; orchards, residentia l development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the west.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-3
The current Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program (FMMP) map identifies the Project site (which consists of the existing 706-acre development and the additional 109-acres of new development) as having the following designations
2:
x Farmland of Local Importance, which includes all farmable lands within the State that do not meet the definitions of prime, statewide, or unique and land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture and grazing, and Urban and Built Up Land. x Urban and Built-up Land, which is land occupied with urban structures (residential, commercial, office, etc.).
x Other Land, which is land not included in any other mapping category. Examples include low density residential developments.
The majority of forest land occurs in the eastern portion of Fresno County, in the Sierra Nevada foothills and Sierra Nevada. The Project site does not contain any land defined as forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or land zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The federal Farmland Protection Policy Act, part of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, was passed in response to the National Agricultural Land Study of 1980-1981 which found that millions of acres of farmland were being converted in the U.S. each year and a related report which found that much of this conversion was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The intent of the Act is to minimize the impact that federal programs have on unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that – to the extent possible – federal programs are administered to be compatible with state and local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland.
2 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .
Accessed October 2020.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-4
State of California Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation uses the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil classifications to classify agricultural lands under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. These designated agricultural lands are included in the farmland maps used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural resources. The California Department of Conservation has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications. The categories are described below. In addition to mapping existing farmland, the FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use changes throughout California.
California Public Resources Code, Division 13 Environmental Quality, Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts. Collectively, land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance is referred to as “agricultural land.” These same classifications of farmland are described as Important Farmland under the FMMP and are the also used in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as the farmland classifications on which impacts on agricultural resources are to be evaluated.
Prime Farmland. This farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply necessary to produce sustained high yields. To be classified as Prime Farmland, the land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland. This is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. The land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance. This is farmland of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-5
Grazing Land. Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum contiguous mapping area for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
Urban and Built-up Land . Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one building unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public and transportation uses, and other developed purposes.
Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category, including low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; animal confinement facilities; mines; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use as a means of preserving California’s prime agricultural lands from urbanization. Prime Farmland under the Williamson Act includes land that qualifies as Class I and II under the Natural Resources Conservation Service classification of land. Through the voluntary contracts between landowners and a city or county, the owners agree to retain their lands in agricultural or other open space uses for a minimum of 10 years.
In return for entering into a Williamson Act contract, landowners receive property tax relief on the lands under contract. This relief is provided through the assessment of lands based upon their income-producing value rather than their market value, which may be considerably higher. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971.
To remove a property from a Williamson Act contract, a landowner has two primary options as described below.
Non-renewal. Submittal of a non-renewal application is the most common means to exit a Williamson Act contract. Once the non-renewal form is recorded, the non-renewal period is -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-6
approximately nine years. All of the contract restrictions remain in effect until the expiration date. To be valid in any contract year the Notice of Non-Renewal must be recorded prior to October 1st or the notice will not take effect until the following renewal date.
Request for Cancellation . Any landowner whose land is under Williamson Act contract may petition the board of supervisors or city counc il for cancellation of the contract. The board or council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a contract only if it makes one of the following two findings based on substantial evidence:
x Cancellation is Consistent with the Williamson Act. Required findings:
o Cancellation is for land on which a notice of non-renewal has been served pursuant to California Government Code Section 51245;
o Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use;
o Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan;
o Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development; and o There is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land; or x Cancellation is in the Public Interest. Required findings:
o Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter; and o There is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development.
A proposed contract cancellation may be approved by a board of supervisors or city council only after it is reviewed and commented on by the California Department of Conservation.
Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract generally requires that the landowner pay fees equal to 12.5 percent of the full market value of the property.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-7
Local Regulations
City of Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. The following objective and policies related to agricultural resources are presented in the General Plan:
Resource Conservation and Resilience Element
x Objective RC-9: Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.
x Policy RC-9-a: Regional Cooperation. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources. x Policy RC-9-b: Unincorporated Land in the Planning Area. Express opposition to residential and commercial development prop osals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
o Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; o Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or
o Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).
x Policy RC-9-c: Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project permanently protect an equal amount of similar farmland elsewhere through easement to mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulation, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some or all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-8
City of Fresno Development Code
The City’s Development Code (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) is intended to provide a guide for the physical development of the city in order to achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the approved General Plan, as well as implement goals, objectives, and policies of the approved General Plan.
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item.
Would the project:
o 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? o Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timb erland as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Ti mberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
o Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? o 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?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.2-1: 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? No Impact. The proposed Project site does not contain soils identified as prime, statewide important, or unique farmland by the California Department of Conservation Farmland -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-9
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The current FMMP map identifies the Project site as farmland of local importance, “other land”,and urban and built up land. 3 The site is within the City limits of Fresno and is designated and zoned for a variety of urban uses including residential, commercial, office, open space, golf course and related uses. The original Copper River Ranch Project 2003 FEIR identified that the original Project would result in the conversion of prime agricultural land and recognized that it was a significant and unavoidable impact (pages 2.1.8 – 2.1.19 of the 2003 FEIR). At that time, the original Copper River Ranch project resulted in the conversion of approximately 70 acres of Thompson grapes, 180 acres of wine grapes, five acres of oranges and 150 acres of dry farmed grassland. In addition, the City’s General Plan Master EIR (2014) evaluated the loss of agricultural lands associated with buildout of the City’s General Plan (including the proposed Project areas)
4. The Project Applicant is
proposing to add an additional 109 acres to the de velopment located adjacent to and east of the existing Copper River Ranch Project. However, the additional 109 acres has already been designated by the City of Fresno General Plan fo r urban uses and will not result in the loss of additional agricultural lands beyond what was analyzed in the City’s General Plan Master EIR (2014) and the 2003 Copper River Ranch FEIR. As such, there are no impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land from the Project itself.
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Impact 3.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. There are no lands in a Williamson Act Contract on the Project site (which consists of the existing 706-acre development and the additional 109-acres of new development) and the Project site is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for urban (non- agricultural) uses.As such, no conflicts with ag ricultural zoning would occur and there would be no impact related to an agricultural zoning conflict.
3 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .
Accessed October 2020.
4 Fresno General Plan Draft Master EIR (2014), pages 5.2-11 through 5.2-13. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-10
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Impact 3.2-3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezo ning 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)), or result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project site lies within the City of Fresno, where there is no forest land. The Project is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and does not propos e any zone changes related to forest or timberland. As such, there are no potential impacts resulting from forest or timber land conflicts or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Mitigation Measures
None are required.
Impact 3.2-4: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation . As discussed in Impact 3.2-1 through 3.2-3, the proposed Project is not located on Farmland as designated by the FMMP or the City and there is no forest land in the Project vicinity. However, there are agricultural lands located immediately east of Project boundary on the east side of Willow Avenue. The 2003 FEIR contained a mitigation measure intended to reduce conflicts between existing agricultural operations and urban development in the area as follows:
“The City shall pursue appropriate measures, including recordation of right to farm covenants, to ensure that agricultural uses of land may continue within those areas of transition where planned urban areas interface with planned agricultural areas.” The previous mitigation measure will be replaced with a similar, but more specific mitigation measure which will ensure impacts remain less than significant as follows:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-11
Mitigation Measures
AG – 1 Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
x Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development. x A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area. x Potential residents shall be informed of th e Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
Applicability of 2003 FEIR Mitigation Measures
As discussed above, the 2003 FEIR provided the mitigation measures related to agricultural resources. The determination of the applicability of those mitigation measures is as follows:
2003 FEIR Mitigation Determination New Mitigation (if applicable)
2.1.5-a: The City shall pursue
appropriate measures, including
recordation of right to farm
covenants, to ensure that
agricultural uses of land may
continue within those areas of
transition where
planned urban
areas interface with planned
agricultural areas.
This previous mitigation
measure from the 2003 FEIR
is similar to the currently
proposed mitigation
measures (i.e. right to farm
covenant). However, the
proposed new mitigation
measure (AG
- 1) shall
supersede mitigation
measure 2.1.5-a contained in
the 2003 FEIR.
AG – 1: In order to reduce
potential conflicts between urban
and agricultural uses, the
following measures shall be
implemented:
x Potential residents shall be
notified about possible
exposure to agricultural
chemicals at the time of
purchase / lease o f property
within the development.
x A Right-to- Farm Covenant
shall be recorded on each
tract map or be made a
condition of each tract map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.2-12
to protect continued
agricultural practices in the
area.
x Potential residents shall be
informed of the Right- to-
Farm Covenant at the time of
purchase / lease of property
within the development.
2.1.4-a: The developer shall
ensure through the subsequent
master use permit and
associated development plan,
that the project is designed in a
compact nature consistent with
the pr
inciples of A Landscape of
Choice to maximize the use of
land, thereby reducing the
pressure on productive
agricultural land to the west,
southwest, east and southeast
of the Fresno/Clovis
metropolitan area.
The development principles
identified in the document A
Landscape of Choice ha ve
been superceded by various
development guidelines as
identified in the City’s
General Plan.
Therefore
mitigation measure 2.1.4-a
from the 2003 FEIR is not
applicable.
Refer to Section
3.11 – Land Use and Planning
in this SEIR for a discussion of
land use compatibility and
consistency with the City’s
General Plan development
standards.
Not applicable.
Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the entire State of California. This cumulative analysis is based on the Statewide FMMP map. As discussed above, the Project site (which consists of the existing 706-acre development and the additional 109-acres of new development) is not on Farmland as designated by the FMMP. The land is not under a Williamson Act Contract and there is no forest land in the Project vicinity. As such, the Project will not result in project-specific impacts and will result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts on agricultural resources.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-1
3.3 Air Quality
This section of the SEIR evaluates the potential impacts to Air Quality associated with implementation of the proposed Project. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report was prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting for the proposed Project. The analysis below is a summarization of the information found within that report, and is provided in its entirety as Appendix B. One NOP comment letter was received from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and is provided in Appendix A. The SJVAPCD recommendations in the comment letter were outlined in seven major points, all of which are addressed within this Air Quality Analysis.
Determination of Adequacy of 2003 FEIR
The original Copper River Ranch Project 2003 FEIR evaluated air quality impacts associated with development of up to 2,837 residential units and approximately 250,000 square feet (60 acres) of commercial development on approximately 706.5 acres. The 2003 FEIR determined that the original Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality resources. The Project Applicant is proposing to add an additional 109 acres to the development located adjacent to and east of the existing Copper River Ranch Project. The Project also proposes some land use changes within the existing Copper River Ranch development. Since the Project is proposing an additional 109 acres to the development as well as changes to some land uses to the existing development, a new technical study was prepared (See Appendix B). Additional information is being provided herein regarding impacts to air quality resources associated with the additional 109 acres and the changes to the existing land us es. Therefore, the following determinations are made:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-2
Topic Further
Analysis
Required?
2003 FEIR
Analysis
Sufficient?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 9
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?
9
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations? 9
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people? 9
Environmental Setting
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).
Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, which creates adverse air quality; inversely, the atmosphere’s ability to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area prevents high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-3
a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.1
Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution.
The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natu ral horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM
2.5 and PM10.
Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution.
The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natu ral horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.
1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Copper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 11.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-4
The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM
2.5 and PM10.
Existing Air Quality Conditions
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. Error! Reference source not found. 3.3-1 summarizes 2017 through 2019 published monitoring data, which is the most recent three-year period available. Data were obtained from the closest air monitoring station with data available. The table displays data from the Clovis- North Villa monitoring station located approximately 5.5 miles south of the Project site). The data show that during the past few years, the project area has exceeded the standards for ozone (state and national), PM
10 (state), and PM2.5 (national). The data in the table reflect the concentration of the pollutants in the air, measured using air monitoring equipment. No recent monitoring data for Fresno County or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin were available for carbon monoxide and SO
2. Generally, no monitoring is conducted for poll utants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.
Table 3.3-1
Air Quality Monitoring Summary2
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time Item 2017 2018 2019
Ozonea 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.138 0.121 0.103
Days > State Standard (0.09
ppm) 13 13 6
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.100 0.094 0.079
Days > State Standard (0.07
ppm) 50 49 30
2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 21.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-5
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time Item 2017 2018 2019
Days > National Standard
(0.070 ppm) 47 43 10
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) ND ID ND
Days > State Standard (9.0
ppm)
ND ND ND
Days > National Standard (9
ppm) ND ND ND
Nitrogen
dioxide
(NO2)b
Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.010 0.090 0.080
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.0588 0.0645 0.0572
Days > State Standard (0.18
ppm) 00 0
Sulfur
dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Annual Average (ppm) ND ND ND
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (0.04
ppm) ND ND ND
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM
10)b
Annual Annual Average (μg/m3) 36.2 39.4 32.6
24 hour 24 Hour (μg/m3) 103.2 114.6 150.9
Days > State Standard (50
μg/m3) 90.4 65.9 90.4
Days > National Standard
(150 μg/m3) 00 0
Fine
particulate
matter
(PM2.5)a
Annual Annual Average ( μg/m3)
12.0 μg/m3 14.7 10.2 14.7
24 Hour 24 Hour (μg/m3) 82.3 39.1 82.3
Days > National Standard
(35 μg/m3) 27.1 10.0 27.1
Notes:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-6
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time Item 2017 2018 2019
> = exceed ppm = parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum
Bold = exceedance of State or Federal Standard
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard a Tranquility Monitoring Station
b Fresno Garland Monitoring Station
The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.
The clearest of these is comparable with the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air.
Table 3.3-23.3-2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.
Table 3.3-2
Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone3
Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI— 51–100— Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 55–70 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.
Cautionary Statements : Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.
3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 22.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-7
Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI— 101–150— Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 71–85 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.
Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratorydisease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI— 151–200— Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 86–105 ppb Health Effects Statements : Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respir atory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else,
especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI— 201–300— Very
Unhealthy
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Concentration 106–200 ppb Health Effects Statements : Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma;
increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially
children, should limit outdoor exertion.
The AQI for the 8-hour ozone standard is based on the current NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb). Based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, the project area experienced no days in the last three years that would be categorized as very unhealthy (AQI 201–250), and as many -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-8
as 117 days that were unhealthy (AQI 151–200) or unhealthy for sensitive groups (AQI 101–150), violating the 70-ppb standard as measured at the Clovis -North Villa monitoring station. The highest reading was 100 parts pe r billion (ppb) in 2017 (AQI 187), compared with the 105-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy (AQI 200). The most days over the standard were 47 days in 2017. 4 The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM 2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 12.1 to 35.4 μg/m3. An AQI of 101 to 150 or 35.5 to 55.4 μg/m3 is considered unhealthful for sensitive groups. When concentrations reach this amount, it is co nsidered an exceedance of the federal PM 2.5 standard.
The monitor at the Tranquility station exceeded the national standard on 2 days in 2016, 6 days in 2017 and 16 days in 2018. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk. Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. The AQI of 151 to 200 is classified as unhealthy for everyone. This AQI classification is triggered when PM
2.5 concentration ranges from 55.4 to 150.4 μg/m3. At this concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. Everyone else should reduce prolonge d or heavy exertion. The highest concentration recorded at the Clovis-North Villa monitoring station in the last three years was 82.3 μg/m 3 (AQI
165) in 2018. At this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly, and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; ev eryone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level. The relationship of the AQI to health effects in shown Table3.3-3.
4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 23.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-9
Table 3.3-3
Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution5 Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI— 51–100— Moderate
Concentration 12.1–35.4
μg/m3
Sensitive Groups : Some people who may be unusually
sensitive to particle.
Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.
Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.
AQI— 101–150— Unhealthy
for Sensitive Groups
Concentration 35.5–55.4
μg/m2
Sensitive Groups: Sensitive groups include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers.
Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with
cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.
If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a
serious problem. If you have any of these, contact your health care provider.
AQI— 151–200— Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Health Effects Statements : Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should
5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 23.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-10
Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else,
especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
AQI— 201–300— Very
Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.
Health Effects Statements : Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma;
increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.
Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially
children, should limit outdoor exertion.
Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.
Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-4. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-11
Table 3.3-4
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status6
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone— One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone— Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in
Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO
X), nitrogen oxides (NO X), and lead. The EPA labels these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines), which sets permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to
6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 25.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-12
prevent environmental and property da mage are called secondary standards. 7 The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
x Ozone x Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
x Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) x Carbon monoxide (CO)
x Lead x Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 8 State of California Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation, and required additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA. Generally, the planning requirements of the CCAA are less stringent than the federal CAA; therefore, consistency with the CAA will also demonstrate consistency with the CCAA.
Toxic Air Contaminants
7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 12.
8 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-13
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. The ten TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para- dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM). TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions. TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations expose d to the pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s au thority to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.
Air Pollutant Description and Health Effects
Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10-year research program (ARB 1998) demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increased risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause a cough, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory proble ms. The federal and state ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sour ces of the pollutants are summarized in Table 1 of Appendix B.
D P M d i f f e r s f r o m o t h e r T A C s i n t h a t i t i s n o t a s i n g l e s u b s t a n c e , b u t a c o m p l e x m i x t u r e o f hundreds of substances. Although DPM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on: engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for DPM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a DPM exposure method. This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM 10 database, ambient PM 10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-14
Health risks attributable to the top 10 TACs listed above are available from the ARB as part of its California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. As shown therein for data collected at the First Street air monitoring station in Fresno, cancer risks attributable to all of the listed TACs above with the exception of DPM have declined about 70 percent from the mid-1990s to 2007. Risks associated with DPM emissions are provided only for the year 2000 and have not been updated in the Almanac. Although more recent editions of the Almanac do not provide estimated risk, they do provide emission inventories for DPM for later years. The 2013 Almanac provides emission inventory trends for DPM from 2000 through 2035. The same Almanac reports that DPM emissions were reduced in the SJVAB from 16 tons per day in 2000 to 11 tons per day in 2010, a 31 percent decrease. DPM emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are projected to decrease to 6 tons per day by 2015, a 62 percent reduction from year 2000 levels. ARB predicts a reduction to three tons per day by 2035, which would be an 81 percent reduction from year 2000 levels. Continued implementation of the ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is expected to provide continued reductions in DPM through 2020 and beyond through regulations on this source. 9 Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present.
Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level, and each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility: the EPA regulates at the national level, the ARB at the state level, and the SJVAPCD at the air basin level.
9 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 20.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-15
The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards—also known as the federal standards described earlier.
A State Implementation Plan is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s State Implementation Plan incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts; specifically, an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. The ARB then submits the to the EPA for approval. After reviewing submitted SIPs, the EPA proposes to approve or disapprove all or part of each plan. The public has an opportunity to comment on the EPA’s proposed action. EPA considers public input before taking final action on a state’s plan. If EPA approves all or part of a SIP, those control measures are enforceable in federal court. If a state fails to submit an approvable plan or if EPA disapproves a plan, the EPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan (FIP).
The most recent federally approved attainment plans for the SJVAPCD are the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2012 PM
2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was adopted by the SJVAPCD on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on August 24, 2016. The plan for areas designated extreme nonattainment must demonstrate attainment of the new ozone standard by December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031. On June 30, 2020, US EPA approved portions of the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards and the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the Stat e Implementation Plan related to the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 35 μg/m³. Additionally, EPA granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM
2.5 standards will continue in 2020. The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. The SJVAB is expected to be designated nonattainment for this new standard in late 2017. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-16
Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources ar e adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional state and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.
Low-Emission Vehicle Program. The ARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan. In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles. 10 On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program. The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, as well as test procedures. ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in- use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.
11 ARB Truck and Bus Regulation. The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014. The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 26.
11 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-17
The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low-use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks. 12 Advanced Clean Truck Regulation. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation was approved on June 25, 2020 and has two main components, a manufacturers ZEV sales requirement and a one- time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets. Promoting the development and use of advanced clean trucks will help CARB achieve its emission reduction strategies as outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Senate Bill (SB) 350, and Assembly Bill (AB) 32.
The proposed regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
x Zero-emission truck sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero- emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 –8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. x Company and fleet reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
13 ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and nitrous oxide (NO X) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The
12 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 27.
13 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-18
ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation.
Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501–5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).
ARB Regulation for Consumer Products . The ARB Consumer Products Regulation was last amended in January 2015. The ARB regulates the VOC content of a wide variety of consumer products sold and manufactured in California. Th e purpose of the regulation is to reduce the emission of ozone precursors, TACs, and GHG emissions in products that are used by homes and businesses. The regulated products include but are not limited to solvents, adhesives, air fresheners, soaps, aromatic compounds, winds hield cleaners, charcoal lighter, dry cleaning fluids, floor polishes, and general cleaners and degreasers. 14 ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos. In July 2001, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground- disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than 1 acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a Dust Mitigation Plan and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.
Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.
The project includes no demolition. Buildings often include materials containing asbestos.
Asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found
14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 27.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-19
associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.
The ARB has an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos-laden dust. The measure applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity. Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that no ultramafic rock has been found near Laton.
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.
15 Right to Farm Act
The California “Right to Farm Act” states that ag ricultural activity is not a nuisance and further states that “no agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than there years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.”
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulations
15 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 28.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-20
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SJVAPCD, in coordination with eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality plans for the SJVAPCD.
Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the one-hour ozone standard, the SJVAPCD adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005 and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.
The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. On March 8, 2010, the EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29-million Clean Air Act penalty.
The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in the region. The SJVAPCD also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination is based on the most recent three-year period (2012-2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data.
The penalty fees remain in place pending submittal of a demonstration that the San Joaquin Valley will maintain the 1-hour standard for 10 years.
16 The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJVAPCD also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. ARB approved the plan in
16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 29.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-21
June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.
The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The SJVAPCD’s Governing Board approved the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on August 24, 2016.
The comprehensive strategy in this plan will reduce NO X emissions by over 60 percent between 2012 and 2031, and will bring the San Joaquin Va lley into attainment of the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, no later than December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031.
17 To ensure that the plan is approvable
with the necessary contingencies, the plan includes a “Black Box” that will require implementation of new advanced technologies and controls prior to the 2031 deadline.
The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. The new standa rd will require the SJVAPCD to prepare a new attainment to achieve the more stringent emission level within 20 years from the effective date of designation.18 State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.
Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for PM
10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of state and federal standards for PM2.5.
To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the PM 10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted a PM 10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (Amended 2003 PM 10 Plan and 2006 PM 10 Plan), which has an attainment date of 2010. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM 10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM 10 on September 25, 2008.
Although the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded the standard since then, those days were
17 Ibid. Page 30.
18 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 30.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-22
considered exceptional events that are not considered a violation of the standard for attainment purposes.
The 2008 PM2.5 Plan builds upon the comprehensive strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan to bring the Air Basin into attainment of the 1997 national standards for PM 2.5. The EPA has identified NOX and SO2as precursors that must be addressed in air quality plans for the 1997 PM2.5 standards. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan is a continuation of the SJVAPCD’s strategy to improve the air quality in the Air Basin. The EPA issued final approval of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan on November 9, 2011, which became effective on January 9, 2012. The EPA approved the emissions inventory, the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA also granted California’s request to extend the attainment deadline for the San Joaquin Valley to April 5, 2015 and approved commitments to measures an d reductions by the SJVAPCD and the ARB.
Finally, it disapproved the State Implementation Plan’s contingency provisions and issued a protective finding for transportation conformity determinations.
In December 2012, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 PM
2.5 Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into
attainment of the EPA’s 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3. The ARB approved the SJVAPCD’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 standard at a public hearing on January 24, 2013. 19 This plan seeks to bring the Valley into attainment with the standard by 2019, with the expectation that most areas will achieve attainment before that time.
The 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM
2.5 Standard approved by the SJVAPCD Governing Board on April 16, 2015— will bring the Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2020. The plan was required to request reclassification to Serious nonattainment and to extend the attainment date from 2018 to 2020.20 The 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard was adopted on September 15, 2016.
This plan includes an attainment impracticability demonstration and request for reclassification of the Valley from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment. The 2016 PM
2.5 Plan is
under ARB review.21
19 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Copper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 30.
20 Ibid. Page 31.
21 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-23
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018. This plan provides a combined strategy to address the EPA federal 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable.22 Rules and Regulations
The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may apply to the proposed Project include but are not limited to the following:23
Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protec t the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
This rule is enforced on a complaint basis.
Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.
Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider.
Rule 4901—Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood-burning fireplaces, wood-burning heaters, and outdoor wood-burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood-burning emissions. All development that includes wood-burning devices are subject to this rule.
Rule 4902—Residential Water Heaters. In 2009, the SJVAPCD amended Rule 4902 to strengthen the rule by lowering the limit to 10 nanograms per joule (ng/J) for new or replacement water
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-24
heaters, and to a limit of 14 ng/J for instantaneous water heaters. Retailer compliance dates ranged from 2010 to 2012, depending on the unit type.
Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM 10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.
Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NO X and PM 10 emissions
from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site SJVAPCD-administered projects, or a combination of the two.
This project is subject to Rule 9510.
Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.
The following air quality significance threshol ds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines effective December 28, 2018. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the SJVAPCD recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-25
the lead agency finds that the project has the po tential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable SJVAPCD thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact analysis herein.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.3-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan (AQP). An additional criterion regarding the project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:
1. Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This measure is determined by comparison to the regional and localized thresholds identified by the SJVAPCD for Regional and Local Air Pollutants.
2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The primary control measures applicable to development projects is Regulation VIII— Fugitive PM
10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review.
Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure for determining if the project is consistent with the air quality plans is if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin.
Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project is based on its -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-26
cumulative contribution. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM10—if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds—then the project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans.
As discussed in Impact 3.2-2 below, emissions of ROG, NO X, CO, and PM10 associated with the operation of the project would exceed the SJVA PCD’s significance thresholds. However, as shown in Impact 3.2-2, the Project would not result in CO hotspots that would violate CO standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations of the CO standard. Although the Project would exceed th e criteria pollutant thresholds for several pollutants, the Copper River Ranch DEIR had already considered air quality to be a significant and unavoidable impact. In addition, the new area being added to Copper River Ranch by the proposed Project was designated for development in the City of Fresno General Plan and was addressed in the air quality analysis in the General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). In addition, proposed changes in land use designation within the adopted Copper River Ranch plan area reflect reduced development densities which produce less air quality impacts than would occur if developed at the existing designations.
Compliance with Applicable Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures , which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A descript ion of rules and regulations that apply to this Project is provided below.
SJVAPCD Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review (ISR) is a control measure in the 2006 PM10 Plan that requires NOX and PM10 emission reductions from development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The NO X emission reductions help reduce the secondary formation of PM 10 in the atmosphere (primarily ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) and also reduce the formation of ozone. Reductions in directly emitted PM 10 reduce particles such as dust, soot, and aerosols.
Rule 9510 is also a control measure in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.
Developers of projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures, or pay off-site mitigation fees. The Project is required to comply with Rule 9510.
Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM
10 Prohibitions is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM 10 for reducing the PM 10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Residential projects over 10 acres and non-residential projects over 5 acres are required to file a Dust Control -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-27
Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The Project is required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.
Other control measures that apply to the project are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving and Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and the coatings, so Project compliance is ensured without additional mitigation measures.
The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan.
Conclusion
The Project’s emissions are significant for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM 10 and would be considered inconsistent with the AQP for this criterion. The Project complies with applicable control measures of the AQP and would be less than significant for this criterion. The growth accommodated by Copper River Ranch is included in the General Plan and therefore it is consistent with the land use assumptions used to prepare the AQP. A substantial portion of the undeveloped area in Copper River Ranch is fully entitled by the City so no additional mitigation can be imposed on those individual projects. Copper River Ranch includes numerous design features to reduce motor vehicle trips and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. In addition, all projects are required to comply with Rule 9510, which is intended to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development in the San Joaquin Valley to the extent feasible. However, after compliance with Rule 9510, emissions will still exceed the SJVAPCD quantitative thresholds of significance. Mitigation measure AIR-1 will reduce impacts; however, impacts are still considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
AIR-1 The air quality mitigation measures adopted in the Copper River Ranch 2003 FEIR shall apply to new projects within the plan area, except for those measures that have been superseded by more stringent regulations or are part of City of Fresno Development Code.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-28
Impact 3.3-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact . To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
1. Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD in its GAMAQI.
2. Summary of projections: the project must be consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations. This is an approach consistent with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. Cumulative health impacts: the project must result in less than significant cumulative health effects from the nonattainment pollutants. This approach correlates the significance of the regional analysis with health effects, consistent with the court decision, Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4
th 1184, 1219-20.
Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the Project.
Localized emissions from project construction and operation are assessed under Impact 3.3-3— Sensitive Receptors using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.
The primary pollutants of concern during proje ct construction and operation are ROG, NO X,
PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NO X emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NO X are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards.
Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone st andard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-29
standards for PM 10, and PM 2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s a nnual emission significance thresholds used for the project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
x 100 tons per year CO
x 10 tons per year NOX
x 10 tons per year ROG
x 27 tons per year SOX
x 15 tons per year PM10
x 15 tons per year PM2.5
The Project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the project show that SO2 emissions are well below the SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the modeling results contained in Appendix B. No further analysis of SO2 is required.
Construction Emissions
Construction emissions were modeled using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. The results of the modeling are presented in Error! Reference source not found. . Construction emissions were assumed to occur at a steady rate through project buildout and were modeled in a single run.
CalEEMod assumes that site preparation and grading would occur at the beginning of construction and architectural coatings would occur at the end of construction. For large plan areas, individual residential tracts and commercial projects are constructed gradually with the various construction activities happening at any time within the buildout period. Therefore, the annual average construction emissions were calc ulated for comparison to the annual threshold of significance. The emissions reflect compliance with SJVAPCD regulations that apply to construction activities. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Appendix B.
As shown in Error! Reference source not found. , the emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore, the emissions would be less than significant on a Project basis.
Table 3.3-5
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary24
24 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 79.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-30
Year Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential Construction
2021 0.48 5.04 3.09 1.07 0.59
2022 0.52 4.98 4.19 0.83 0.40
2023 1.18 8.60 10.01 1.59 0.63
2024 1.11 8.23 9.80 1.57 0.60
2025 1.03 7.76 9.50 1.53 0.56
2026 13.03 3.49 4.83 0.58 0.24
Total 17.35 38.10 41.42 7.17 3.01
Average Annual Construction
Emissions (5 years or 60
months)
3.47 7.62 8.28 1.43 0.60
Commercial Construction
2021 0.05 0.49 0.31 0.11 0.06
2022 0.27 2.59 1.87 0.52 0.17
2023 0.27 2.35 1.89 0.59 0.18
2024 0.26 2.31 1.80 0.60 0.18
2025 0.24 2.25 1.70 0.59 0.17
2026 0.23 2.23 1.63 0.59 0.17
2027 0.22 2.21 1.56 0.59 0.17
2028 0.85 0.97 0.80 0.26 0.08
Total 2.41 15.40 11.54 3.85 1.19
Average Annual Construction
Emissions (7 years or 84
months)
0.34 2.20 1.65 0.55 0.17
Combined Project Annual Average Construction Emissions
Annual Average 3.81 9.82 9.93 1.98 0.26
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-31
Year Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Annual Average with Rule
9510 ISR Compliance
3.81 7.86 9.93 1.97 0.26
Significance threshold
(tons/year)
10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold— significant
impact?
No No No No No
Notes:
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII — Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
ROG = reactive organic gases NO X = nitrogen oxides PM 10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Calculations use unrounded numbers.
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B).
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from two main sources: area sources and motor vehicles, or mobile sources. Project buildout for residential is assumed to occur in 2026 and in 2028 for the commercial portions of the Project. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Appendix B. The emissions modeling results for Project operation are summarized in Error! Reference source not found..
As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM
10 after compliance with Rule 9510. The emissions shown in Table 3.3-6 for the residential and commercial portions of the Project include credit for compliance with regulations and Project design features that would reduce Project emissions. The combined Project emissions show the unmitigated emissions before and after compliance with Rule 9510 which applies to the unmitigated baseline. Project operational emissions would result in a significant impact.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-32
Table 3.3-6
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions at Buildout25
Emission Sources Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential (with design features)
Area 13.16 0.96 15.88 0.15 0.15
Energy 0.23 1.94 0.82 0.16 0.16
Mobile 4.20 13.74 44.35 17.77 4.83
Total 17.60 16.64 61.05 18.07 5.13
Commercial (with design features)
Area 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.01 0.01
Mobile 2.09 2.05 14.26 5.03 1.36
25 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 81.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-33
Emission Sources Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total 2.96 2.21 14.39 5.04 1.38
Combined Project Residential and Commercial (Unmitigated) Area 18.05 1.55 51.99 6.04 6.04
Energy 0.26 2.21 1.00 0.18 0.18
Mobile 6.45 16.67 63.71 25.60 6.96
Total Project Emissions 24.76 20.43 116.70 31.82 13.18
Total with Rule 9510 ISR
Compliance
24.76 13.62 116.70 15.91 13.18
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold — significant
impact?
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Notes:
ROG = reactive organic gases NO X = nitrogen oxides PM 10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting. Rule 9510 compliance is based on a reduction prior to credits for design features and mitigation measures.
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B).
Step 2: Plan Approach
Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-34
The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts is based on a summary of projections analysis. The SJVAPCD attainment plans are based on a summary of projections that accounts for projected growth throughout the Air Basin, and the controls needed to achieve ambient air quality standards. This analysis considers the current CEQA Guidelines, which includes the amendments approved by the Natural Resources Agency, effective on December 28, 2018. The Air Basin is in nonattainment or maintenance status for ozone and particulate matter (PM
10 and PM 2.5), which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants, or that the standards have recently been attained in the case of pollutants with maintenance status. When concentrations of ozone, PM10, or PM2.5 exceed the ambient air quality standard, then those sensitive to air pollution (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm) could experience health effects such as: decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; increased mortality risk; and risk to public health, implied by altered connective tissue metabolism, altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures, and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans. See Appendix B for additional correlation of the health impacts with the existing pollutant concentrations experienced in the Fresno area.
Under the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts may be analyzed using other plans that evaluate relevant cumulative effects. The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the Air Basin, because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the Air Basin circulate and are often trapped. The SJVAPCD is required to prepare and maintain air quality attainment plans and a State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SJVAPCD does not have authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning would help the Air Basin achieve clean air mandates. The SJVAPCD evaluated emissions from land uses and transportation in the entire Air Basin when it developed its attainment plans. Emission inventories used to predict attainment of NAAQS must be based on the latest planning assumptions for mobile sources. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-35
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program.
The history and development of the SJVAPCD’s current Ozone Attainment Plan is described in Appendix B. The 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan contains measures to achieve reductions in emissions of ozone precursors, and sets plans towards attainment of ambient ozone standards by 2023. The 2012 PM
2.5 Plan and the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard require fewer NOX reductions to attain the PM2.5 standard than the Ozone Plan, so the Ozone Plan is considered the applicable plan for reductions of the ozone precursors NO X and ROG. The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan requires reductions in directly emitted PM 2.5 from combustion sources, such as diesel engines and fireplaces, and from fugitive dust to attain the ambient standard and is the applicable plan for PM2.5 emissions. PM2.5 is also formed in secondary reactions in the atmosphere involving NOX and ammonia to form nitrate particles. Reductions in NO X required for ozone attainment are also sufficient for PM 2.5 attainment. As discussed in Impact 3.3-1, the Project is consistent with all applicable control measures in the air quality attainment plans. The Project would comply with any SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may pertain to implementation of the AQPs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with regard to compliance with applicable rules and regulations.
In conclusion, the growth resulting from the Project is accounted for in the General Plan and the applicable AQP, the Project will comply with applicable rules and regulations implementing the AQP; however, the Project exceeds SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM 10 after
compliance with Rule 9510; therefore, the Project is considered significant for this criterion.
Project Health Impacts
In the 5th District Court of Appeal case Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.), the Court found the project EIR deficient because it did not identify specific health-related effects resulting from the estimated amount of pollutants generated by the project. The ruling stated that the EIR should give a “sense of the nature and magnitude of the ‘health and safety problems’ caused by a project’s air pollution. The EIR should translate the emission numbers into adverse impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible).”
The standard measure of the severity of impact is the concentration of pollutant in the atmosphere compared to the ambient air quality standard for the pollutant for a specified period of time. The -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-36
severity of the impact increases with the concentration and the amount of time that people are exposed to the pollutant. The change in health impacts with concentration is described in Table 3.3-2 and
Table using the EPA’s Air Quality Index. The pollutants of concern in the Friant Ranch ruling were regional criteria pollutants ozone, and PM 10. It is important to note that the potential for localized impacts can be addressed through dispersion modeling. The SJVAPCD includes screening criteria that if exceeded would require dispersion modeling to determine if project emissions would result in a significant health impact. For this Project, no significant localized health impacts would occur. Regional pollutants require more complex modeling as described below.
Ozone concentrations are estimated using regional photochemical models because ozone formation is subject to temperature, inversion strength, sunlight, emissions transport over long distances, dispersion, and the regional nature of the precursor emissions. The emissions from individual projects are too small to produce a me asurable change in ozone concentrations—it is the cumulative contribution of emissions from existing and new development that is accounted for in the photochemical model. Ozone concentrations vary widely throughout the day and year even with the same amount of daily emissions. The SJVAPCD indicated in an Amicus Brief on Friant Ranch that running the photochemical model with just Friant Ranch emissions (109.5 tons/year NO
X) is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved. A copy of the SJVAPCD brief is included in Appendix B of Appendix B. The NO X inventory for the San Joaquin Valley is 224 tons per day in 2019 or 81,760 tons per year. Friant Ranch would result in
0.13 percent increase in NO X emissions. A project emitting at the SJVAPCD CEQA threshold of 10 tons per year would result in a 0.01 percent increase in NOX emissions. Project NOx emissions are 13.2 tons per year, so would result in a 0.016 percent increase in NOx. Most Project emissions are generated by motor vehicle travel distribute d on regional roadways miles from the Project site, and these emissions are not conducive to project-level concentration-based modeling.
Emissions throughout the San Joaquin Valley are projected to markedly decline in the coming decade. The SJVAPCD 2016 Ozone Plan predicts NOX emissions will decline to 103 tons per day by 2029 or 54 percent from 2019 levels through implementation of control measures included in the plan. This means that ozone health impacts to residents of the San Joaquin Valley will be lower than currently experienced and most areas of the San Joaquin Valley will have attained ozone air quality standards. The plan accounts for growth in population at rates projected by the State of California for the San Joaquin Valley, so only cumulative projects that would exceed regional growth projections would potentially delay attainment and prolong the time and the -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-37
number of people would experience health impacts. It is unlikely that anyone would experience greater impacts from regional emissions than currently occur. The federal transportation conformity regulation provides a means of ensuring growth in emissions does not exceed emission budgets for each County. Regional Transportation Plans and Regional Transportation Improvement Plans must provide a conformity analysis based on the latest planning assumptions that demonstrates that budgets will be not be exceeded. If budgets are exceeded, the San Joaquin Valley may be subject to Clean Air Act sanctions until the deficiency is addressed.
Particulate emission impacts can be localized and regional. Particulates can be directly emitted and can be formed in the atmosphere with chemical reactions. Small directly emitted particles such as diesel emissions and other combustion emissions can remain in the atmosphere for a long time and can be transported over long distances. Large particles such as fugitive dust tend to be deposited a short distance from where emitted but can also travel long distances during periods of high winds. Particulates can be washed out of the atmosphere by rain and deposited on surfaces. Secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere such as ammonium nitrate require NO
X and ammonia, and they require low inversion levels and certain ranges of temperature and humidity to result in substantial concentrations. These complications make modeling project particulate emissions to determine concentration feasible only for directly emitted particles at receptor locations close to the project site. Regional particulate concentrations are modeled using a gridded inventory (emissions in tons/day are placed a 4-kilometer, three-dimensional grid to spatially allocate the emissions geographically and vertically in the atmosphere) and an atmospheric chemistry component to simulate the chemical reactions. The model uses relative reduction factors to determine the reductions of each PM component that will be needed to attain the air quality standards on the days with the conditions most favorable to high particulate concentrations. A small project would not produce sufficient emissions to determine a project’s individual contribution to the particulate concentration.
Step 3: Cumulative Health Impacts
The Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM 10 (State only), and PM 2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards.
The air quality standards were set to protect pu blic health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects that were described in Appendix B. However, the health effects are a factor of the dose-response curve. Concentration of the pollutant in the air (dose), the length of time exposed, and the response of the individual are factors involved in the severity and nature -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-38
of health impacts. If a significant health impact results from project emissions, it does not mean that 100 percent of the population would experience health effects. Error! Reference source not found.,
Table
3.3-2.3-2, and
Table relate the pollutant concentration experienced by residents using air quality data for the nearest air monitoring station to the health impacts ascribed to those concentrations by the EPA Air Quality Index. This provides a more detailed look at the actual impacts currently experienced by area residents.
Since the Basin is nonattainment for ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the project. When this occurs, the analysis considers whether the project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD regional thresholds for NO X, VOC, PM 10, or PM 2.5 are applied as cumulative contribution thresholds. Projects that exceed the regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As shown in Error! Reference source not found. 3.3-5 and Error! Reference source not found. , the regional analysis of construction and operational emissions indicates that the Project would exce ed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for operational emissions. Therefore, the Project woul d be considered to have a significant health impact based on this criterion. However, the Project is considered less than significant for the other criteria related to consistency with the Air Quality Plan.
The SJVAPCD Air Quality Attainment Plans predict that nonattainment pollutant emissions will continue to decline each year as regulations adopted to reduce these emissions are implemented, accounting for growth projected for the region. Therefore, the cumulative health impact will also decline even with the Project’s emission contribution.
Conclusion
The Project’s operational emissions exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM 10; therefore, this is considered a significant impact. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Copper River Ranch includes a mitigation measure to reduce air quality impacts that will continue to apply to individual projects within the plan area, but found the impacts to be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Since the Final EIR was certified in 2003, the City of Fresno General Plan was updated in 2014 and a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared that included Copper River Ranch and the expanded plan area included in the current project. The MEIR identified General Plan policies that would reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible and found regional air -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-39
quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measure for regional emission impacts from the DEIR is provided below:
1. The developer shall be responsible for the following measures to be included as a condition of approval on each conditional use permit; tentative tract map, or site plan:
a. Pedestrian enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include: sidewalks and pedestrian paths; street trees to shade sidewalks; pedestrian safety designs/infrastructure; street furniture; street lighting; and pedestrian signalization and signage.
b. Bicycle enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include: bikeways/paths connecting to a bikeway system; and secure bicycle parking. c. The project shall either contract with Fresno Area Express (FAX) through the City to provide transit services within the project area, or provide an on-site transit service to off-site FAX transit stations/multimodal centers. d. Transit-enhancing infrastructure shall be provided and include: transit shelters, benches, etc.; street lighting; route signs and displays; and/or bus turnouts/bulbs. e. Park and ride lots and/or satellite telecommuting centers shall be provided in the project area.
f. Carpool/Vanpool programs shall be implemented, e.g., carpool, ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc. g. On-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc. shall be provided within commercial and office areas.
h. A Transportation Demand Management Program shall be established and include:
transit, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic flow improvements, transportation system management, rideshare, telecommuting, video conferencing, and other measures to reduce peak hour vehicle trips.
2. Future construction plans for residential, commercial, office, and public uses shall include:
a. Solar or low-emission water heaters.
b. Central water heating systems in commercial areas.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-40
c. Open-hearth fireplaces shall require use of natural gas or installation of low- emissions, EPA-certified fireplace inserts.
The proposed Project incorporates design features that reduce air quality impacts as required by the mitigation measures. In addition, regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD and the State of California since the DEIR was prepared, provide emission reductions that meet or exceed the requirements of the mitigation measures included in the DEIR and relevant General Plan policies.
For example, Rule 9510 ISR, adopted in 2006, requ ires the project to reduce operational NOx emissions by 30 percent and PM
10 emissions by 50 percent through the implementation of design features or payment of off-site mitigation fees. Rule 4901 regulates the installation of wood burning devices in project residences. Rule 9401 Employee Trip Reduction requires large employers to prepare plans to reduce employee trips with measures listed in the mitigation measure, among others. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and now require energy efficiency measures much more stringent than envisioned at the time the DEIR was prepared. Solar panels are now required for residential projects under 2019 Title 24. The existing development in Copper River Ranch and new development in the proposed project include bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure as required by the mitigation measure.
SJVAPCD comments on the NOP recommended that if the Project is expected to have a significant impact, the SEIR should include a discussion on the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the project. A VERA is an off-site mitigation program funded with mitigation fees managed by the SJVAPCD. A VERA in not feasible for this Project for the following reasons:
1. Copper River Ranch was subject to an EIR that identified significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and included all feasible mitigation measures and a Statement of Overriding Circumstances (SOC), so no additional mitigation measures can be imposed on the developed or entitled (but undeveloped) portions of the current plan area.
2. Undeveloped portions of current plan area with vested land use entitlements in place are not subject to additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval. A substantial portion of the emissions that that resulted in the project exceeding the threshold of significance are from fully entitled residential and commercial projects.
3. New project areas being added to Copper River Ranch have existing land use designations that were included in the City of Fresno General Plan and covered by an SOC for air quality impacts by the General Plan MEIR. Under this circumstance, the -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-41
projects within new areas must only demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and comply with conditions applied to the Tentative Tract Maps and commercial site plans for individual projects and with applicable regulations. If the project is not approved, development projects could proceed on an individual project basis without any additional requirements beyond compliance with Rule 9510 ISR.
4. Requiring additional mitigation for only a portion of the project site would create an unfair burden to individual projects within the plan area that have not fully completed the entitlement process. The burden of administering a VERA for only a portion of the site over a seven-year buildout would be excessive compared to the air quality benefits.
5. VERAs are open ended agreements with no cap on potential costs to the developer. The SJVAPCD reserves the option to increase mitigation fees if the cost of emission reduction projects increase by the time development occurs and the fees are paid. Paying the fees early to lock in the cost is not feasible for most developers. This places uncertainty on the future feasibility and cost of the projects.
Based on this information, a VERA should not be considered a feasible mitigation measure for this Project. However, the Project should continue to implement the mitigation measures included in the 2003 Copper River Ranch DEIR that have not been superseded by more stringent regulations and standards. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 will reduce impacts; however, those impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
AIR-1 The air quality mitigation measures adopted in the Copper River Ranch 2003 FEIR shall apply to new projects within the plan area, except for those measures that have been superseded by more stringent regulations or are part of City of Fresno Development Code.
Impact 3.3-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact.
Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre- existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-42
location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest off-site sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the project site to the south across East Copper Avenue.
Development will occur at multiple locations within Copper River Ranch where residences already exist. New and existing residential development within the project area would be considered sensitive receptors once occupied.
Off-site Sensitive Receptors
Impacts to receptors located outside the Project boundaries would occur during Project construction and operation. Construction emissions are assumed to commence with the year 2021 and continue until Project buildout in 2028. The hi ghest emissions are expected to occur during the site preparation and grading activities and to a lesser extent during ground up construction.
The buildout of Copper River Ranch will occur on a project-by-project basis over a wide area. The maximum impact from each individual subdivision or commercial development would occur at sensitive receptor locations closest to construction sites. Therefore, the largest individual projects remaining to be constructed in the project area were assessed to determine the maximum daily emissions compared to SJVAPCD localized emission thresholds. As shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. , emissions generated from construction and operation of the largest residential and commercial projects would be less than SJVAPCD screening criteria. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
On-site Sensitive Receptors
The Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions. Construction activities produce short- term emissions that would not contribute substantially to cancer risk, which is estimated on a 70- year exposure period. The neighborhood commercial uses produce TAC emissions from diesel delivery trucks, but not in significant amounts.
Construction: ROG
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern.
Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-43
There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, SJVAPCD Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than one-half (0.5) percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.
The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes.
Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of th e fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure.
The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction would be less than significant.
Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. The impact from localized poll utants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor. Copper River Ranch covers a large area with individual projects that are widely separated from one another and would be constructed over at least five years for residential development and seven years for commercial projects. All individual projects will be adjacent to existing and planned sensitive receptor locations where the maximum localized impact would occur. Therefore, only the largest individual projects with Copper River Ranch were modeled to identify the worst-case, since other smaller projects would produce lower emissions and impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are PM 10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO. There is no
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-44
localized emission standard for ROG and most types of ROG are not toxic and have no health- based standard; however, ROG was included for informational purposes only.
The highest daily emissions occur during project grading activities except for ROG emissions, which are highest during application of architectural coatings. The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Error! Reference source not found. . The largest remaining tract map (Tract 6269) and larges t commercial project (Copper/ Willow Shopping Center) were modeled to determine the maximum daily impact. The sequence and location of development within Copper River Ranch is subject to market forces; therefore, construction was assumed to begin early in the buildout process as a conservative assumption. Project maximum daily construction emissions would be less than the screening threshold for all pollutants; therefore, no additional analysis is required for localized criteria pollutant impacts.
Table 3.3-7
Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction26 Maximum Daily Emissions by
Year
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential Project (Tract 6269)
2022 7.33 77.73 58.62 16.33 9.91
2023 73.75 33.73 38.37 2.55 1.71
Maximum Daily Construction
Emissions any Year
73.75 77.73 58.62 16.33 9.91
Screening Thresholds 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold (Yes or No) No No No No No
2022 3.71 38.88 29.58 9.89 5.99
2023 36.86 22.41 22.92 3.21 1.35
Residential Project (Tract 6269)
Maximum Daily Construction
Emissions any Year
36.86 38.88 29.58 9.89 5.99
26 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 89.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-45
Maximum Daily Emissions by
Year
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Screening Thresholds 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold (Yes or No) No No No No No
Notes:
NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM 10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A = Not applicable
Emissions shown are from the summer model output. There is no ambient air quality standard for ROG.
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B).
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
An analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern. The maximum daily operational emissions are assumed to occur at the largest, most intense individual development sites. In this case, the largest residential tract remaining to be developed is Tract 6269 with 276 dwelling units on 39.84 acres, and the largest commercial development is the 9.45-acre shopping center site at Copper Avenue and Willow Avenue. The Projects were modeled with a 2022 operational date, which would constitute a conservative analysis because emissions decline over time as older, high-emitting vehicles are replaced with new low-emitting vehicles compliant with current emission standards. Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and off-site by motor vehicles accessing the project. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, only emissions from vehicles operating within 0.5 mile of the site were included in the assessment. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 3.3-8
Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during Operations27
27 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 90.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-46
Maximum Daily Emissions per
Source Category
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Residential Project (Tract 6269)
Area 12.72 2.78 23.87 0.33 0.33
Energy 0.20 1.71 0.73 0.14 0.14
Mobile 0.40 1.06 3.64 1.02 0.28
Total 13.32 5.56 28.24 1.49 0.75
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No No No No No
Commercial Project (Copper/Willow Shopping Center)
Area 2.26 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.04 0.37 0.31 0.03 0.03
Mobile 0.83 0.83 4.60 1.04 0.28
Total 3.13 1.21 4.92 1.07 0.31
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No No No No No
Notes:
NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM 10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A = Not applicable
Emissions shown are from the summer model output. There is no ambient air quality standard for ROG.
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B).
The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts; therefore, the Project’s localized criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant.
Operation: ROG
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-47
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles and miles of roadway an d in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.
Operation: PM
10, PM2.5, CO, NO2
As shown in Error! Reference source not found., localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 would not exceed the SJVAPCD screening thresholds at full project buildout. Residential development is an insignificant source of these pollutants, except for projects that allow woodburning devices that emit PM
10, PM2.5 in wood smoke. The project will include only natural gas-fueled fireplaces and inserts that are insignificant sources of PM 2.5 and PM 10. The largest source of emissions from commercial projects is motor vehicles. Most motor vehicle emissions occur when employee and customer vehicles travel to and from the project site and not during parking and idling on the site. The localized emissions would not exceed the screening threshold; the project would not expose sensitive receptors located near the commercial site to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis
Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the project vicinity.
Project construction would result in minor increases in traffic for the surrounding road network during the duration of construction. Motor vehicles accessing the site when it becomes operational would result in a minor increase in daily trips that would not substantially reduce the LOS on roads serving the site. The highest background 8-hour average CO concentration during the latest year it was monitored is 2.06 ppm, which is 78 percent lower than the CAAQS of 9.0 ppm or the NAAQS of 9 ppm.
A sensitivity analysis using the CALINE4 CO Hotspot model was run for the General Plan MEIR to determine the volume of trips that would be required to exceed the most stringent CO standard. At triple the predicted peak for General Plan buildout of 36,000 peak-hour trips, the hourly concentration was 7.5 ppm and an 8-hour concentration of 6.0 ppm. Based on this analysis, it is extremely unlikely that a CO hotspot will occur in the Plan Area. CO emissions are predicted to continue to decline as old vehicles are retired and new cleaner motor vehicles take their place.
Therefore, no CO hotspot modeling is required for new projects during General Plan Buildout -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-48
unless intersection volumes exceed 36,000 peak-hour trips, which is not projected to occur with the Project.
Construction: Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.
Residential and neighborhood commercial projects produce limited amounts of TAC emissions during operation and thus have not been subject to project TAC analysis. Most emissions from construction activities occur during the grading and site preparation phases that occur over the first three months of construction and do not overlap with project operations. Limited amounts of diesel equipment are used during ground-up construction of individual houses that occurs during the majority of the construction schedule when some units may be occupied. Construction equipment fleet operators are subject to ARB’s In Use Offroad Equipment Fleet Regulation, which requires the use of increasing amounts of lower-emitting equipment that will help to ensure that risk would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds.
Construction phase risks would be considered acute health risks as opposed to cancer risks, which are long-term. OEHHA has yet to define acute risk factors for diesel particulates that would allow the calculation of a hazards risk index; thus, evaluation of this impact would be speculative and no further discussion is necessary.
Operation: Toxic Air Contaminants
The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution”
28, including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. In the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (Case No. S213478) the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a proposed project
28 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 92.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-49
risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Although the Court rule d that impacts from the existing environment on projects are not required to be addressed under CEQA, land uses such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, distribution centers, and auto body shops can expose residents to high levels of TAC emissions if they are close to the project site. Information regarding the location of existing TAC sources is provided for disclosure purposes only and not as a measure of the project’s significance under CEQA.
Consistency with these recommendations is assessed as follows:
x Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends a voiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The project is located on the north side of East Copper Avenue between North Friant Road and North Willow Avenue. Traffic volume on East Copper Avenue west of North Millbrook Avenue was 12,870 trips per day in 2019. Traffic volume on North Friant Road south of Copper Avenue was 28,553 trips per day in 2019. No roads serving the project would exceed this criterion.
29 x Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The project is not located within 1,000 feet of a distribution center.
x Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).
ARB recommends a 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest gas station is located at 10091 N. Maple Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles south of the project site. The project is expected to have three gas stations at buildout. The gas stations are expected to be small facilities with volumes of 1.0 million gallons per year or less that should be constructed at least 50 feet from the nearest residence. The proposed gas stations at Friant Road and Copper Avenue and Copper
29 JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2019. Traffic Impact Analysis – Sunset Center. Dated December 5, 2019. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-50
Avenue and Maple Avenue are over 50 feet from the nearest residence. No site plan has been prepared for the shopping center site located at Copper Avenue and Willow Avenue. x Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation that us es perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry-cleaning operation is approximately 1.2 miles south of the project site at 10083 N.
Maple Avenue. The commercial sites could attract dry cleaners as tenants, but this would be speculative. In the event that dry cleaners are located in the project, facilities with on- site dry cleaning would be subject to SJVAPCD permitting and health risk screening. x Auto body shops. Auto body shops have the potential to emit TACs related to painting.
The nearest auto body shop is located at 427 W. Bedford Avenue approximately 6.0 miles south of the Project site, which is beyond the distance that would result in a measurable impact.
Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off- road activities.
The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. During 2000-2018, a total of 65,438 coccidioidomycosis cases were reported in California; median statewide annual incidence was 7.9 per 100,000 population and varied by region from 1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15-fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, King s, Madera, and Tulare counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions.
30 California experienced 6,490 new cases of Valley fever in 2020. A total of 508 Valley fever cases were reported in Fresno County in 2020.31
30 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Copper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 94.
31 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-51
The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
x Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface) x Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
x Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
x Areas with high salinity soils
x Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) x Packrat middens
x Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils x Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
x Cultivated fields
x Heavily vegetated areas (e.g., grassy lawns)
x Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
x Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium sulfate) have been applied x Areas that are continually wet
x Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
x Soils containing abundant microorganisms
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-52
x Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.32 The Project site is situated in a city growth area. The project includes urbanization of a site that is partially developed and previously graded. Therefore, implementation of the project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil.
Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with the SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.
During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the project from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur,33 there are no such areas in the project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
In summary, the Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant. The Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions during construction or operation. The Project is not in an area with suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 94.
33 Ibid.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-53
Impact 3.3-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.
Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. Th e second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. According to the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, impacts of existing sources of odors on the project are not subject to CEQA review. Therefore, the analysis to determine if the project would locate new sensitive receptors near an existing source of odor is provided for information only. The SJVAPCD has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Error! Reference source not found.9.
Table 3.3-9
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources34
Odor Generator Screening
Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Co pper River Ranch Project. Prepared by Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix B, page 90.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-54
Odor Generator Screening
Distance
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto
body shop)
1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
According to the SJVAPCD GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
x Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
x Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.
Project as a Generator
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The Project would not engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the Project would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-55
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be te mporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant.
Project as a Receiver
With the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, analysis of odor impacts on receivers is not required for CEQA compliance. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for information only.
The residential portion of the development has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing and new odor sources. However, there are no major odor-generating sources (as listed in Error! Reference source not found.9) within screening distance of the site or planned for the commercially designated areas of the plan. Theref ore, the uses in the Project vicinity would not result in substantial odor impacts to the Project. Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Applicability of 2003 FEIR Mitigation Measures
As discussed above, the 2003 FEIR provided the mitigation measures related to air quality resources. The determination of the applicability of those mitigation measures is as follows:
2003 FEIR Mitigation Determination New Mitigation (if applicable)
2.3.1-a: A Fugitive Dust
Prevention and Control Plan
shall be developed to specify
control methods, demonstrate
availability of equipment and
personnel, and identify the
individual authorized to
implement prevention
measures. The Plan shall
comply with the SJVAPCD
The previous 2003
mitigation measures shall
apply to the Project as
currently proposed.
The air quality mitigation
measures adopted in the
Copper River Ranch 2003 F EIR
shall apply to new projects
within the plan area, except for
those measures that have been
superseded by more stringent
regulations or are part of City of
Fresno Development Code.
Therefore, Mitigation Measures
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-56
Regulation VIII- Fugitive Dust
Rules. The Plan shall include the
following conditions:
a. All disturbed areas,
including storage piles,
which are not being
actively utilized for
construction purposes,
shall be effectively
stabilized of dust
emissions using water,
chemical
stabilizer/suppressant,
or vegetative ground
cover.
b. All on- site unpaved
roads and off- site
unpaved access roads
shall be effectively
stabilized of dust
emissions using water or
chemical
stabilizer/suppressant.
c. All land clearing,
grubbing, scraping
excavation, land
leveling, grading, cut
and fill, and demolition
activities shall be
effectively controlled of
fugitive dust emissions
utilizing applications of
water or by presoaking.
d. When materials are
transported off- site, all
material shall be
covered, effectively
wetted to limit visible
dust emissions, or
maintain at least six
inches of freeboard
space from the top of
the container.
2.3.1-a, 2.3.1-b, 2.3.2-a, and
2.3.2-b continue to be
applicable.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-57
e. All operations shall limit
or expeditiously remove
the accumulation of
mud or dirt from
adjacent public streets
at least once every 24
hours when operations
are occurring. The use
of dry rotary brushes is
expressly prohibited
except where
preceded or
accompanied by
sufficient wetting to limit
the visible dust
emissions.
f. Following the addition
of materials to, or the
removal of materials
from, the surface of
outdoor storage piles,
said piles shall be
effectively stabilized of
fugitive dust emissions
utilizing sufficient water
or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant.
g. Traffic speeds on
unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per
hour.
h. Sandbags or other
erosion control
measures shall be
installed to prevent silt
runoff to public
roadways from sites with
a slope greater than
one percent.
i. Excavation and grading
activity shall be
suspended when winds
exceed 20 miles per
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-58
hour.
2.3.1-b: Construction
contracts shall include the
following provisions:
a. All construction
equipment shall be
properly maintained
and operated.
b. Alternative-fueled
construction
equipment shall be
used if feasible.
c. Hours of operation of
heavy-duty
equipment sh all be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday.
2.3.2-a: The developer shall be
responsible for the following
measures to be included as a
condition of approval on
each conditional use permit,
tentative tract map, or site
plan:
a. Pedestrian enhancing
infrastructure shall be
provided and include:
sidewalks and
pedestrian paths;
street trees to shade
sidewalks; pedestrian
safety
designs/infrastructure;
street furniture; street
lighting; and
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-59
pedestrian
signalization and
signage.
b. Bicycle enha ncing
infrastructure shall be
provided and include:
bikeways/paths
connecting to a
bikeway system; and
secure bicycle
parking.
c. The project shall either
contract with Fresno
Area Express (FAX)
through the City to
provide transit services
within the project
area, or provide an on-
site transit service to
off-site FAX transit
stations/multimodal
centers.
d. Transit-enhancing
infrastructure shall be
provided and include:
transit shelters,
benches, etc.; street
lighting; route signs
and displays; and/or
bus turnouts/bulbs.
e. Park and ride lots
and/or satellite
telecommuting
centers shall be
provided in the project
area.
f. Carpool/vanpool
programs shall be
implemented, e.g.,
carpool, ridematching
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-60
for employees,
assistance with
vanpool formation,
provision of vanpool
vehicles, etc.
g. On-site shops and
services for
employees, such as
cafeteria, bank/ATM,
dry cleaners,
convenience market,
etc. shall be provided
within commercial and
office areas.
h. A Transportation
Demand
Management
Program shall be
established and
include: transit,
bicycle, pedestrian,
traffic flow
improvements,
transportation system
management,
rideshare,
telecommuting, video
conferencing, and
other measures to
reduce peak hour
vehicle trips.
2.3.2-b: Future construction
plans for residential,
commercial, office, and
public uses shall include:
a. solar or low- emission
water heaters.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.3-61
b. central water heating
systems in commercial
areas.
c. Open-hearth
fireplaces shall require
use of natur al gas or
installation of low -
emission, EPA- certified
fireplace inserts.
Cumulative Impacts:
The scope for considering cumulative impacts to air quality resources is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts are discussed in Impact 3.3-2 and within that analysis, cumulative impacts were demonstrated to be significant and unavoidable. As such, cumulative impacts, even with mitigation, are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-1
3.4 Biological Resources
This section of the SEIR evaluates the potential impacts to Biological Resources associated with implementation of the proposed Project. No NOP comments were received pertaining to Biological Resources.
Determination of Adequacy of 2003 FEIR
The original Copper River Ranch Project 2003 FEIR evaluated biological impacts associated with development of up to 2,837 residential units and approximately 250,000 square feet (60 acres) of commercial development on approximately 706.5 acres. The 2003 FEIR determined that the original Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures (Section 2.5, pages 2.5.1 – 2.5.16 of the 2003 FEIR).
However, the Project Applicant is proposing to add an additional 109 acres to the development located adjacent to and east of the existing Copper River Ranch Project. The Project also proposes some land use changes within the existing Copper River Ranch development. Since the Project is proposing an additional 109 acres to the development as well as changes to some land uses to the existing development, a new biological technical study was prepared (See Appendix C), and additional information is being provided herein regarding impacts to biological resources associated with the additional 109 acres. Therefore, the following determinations are made:
Topic
Further
Analysis
Required?
2003 FEIR
Analysis
Sufficient?
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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
9
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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
9
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 9
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-2
other means;
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 site?
9
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 9
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservat ion Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
9
Environmental Setting
The existing 706.5-acre Copper River Ranch Development is located at the northeastern edge of the City limits of Fresno in an area that has been largely developed with urban uses. The proposed additional 109 acres is located adjacent to and east of the existing development (See Figure 3.4-1). Elevations of the proposed new development area range from 340 to 400 feet above sea level. The new 109-acre development area has been mostly disturbed (graded, disced, or developed) and supports residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation. The proposed new development area is surrounded by residential development to the north; residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the south; orchards, residentia l development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the west. See Figure 3.4-1 for the location of the new areas that were biologically surveyed.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-3
Figure 3.4-1
Biological Survey Boundary of New Development Areas
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-4
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or DPSs that are likely to become endangered in the near future.
ESA is administered by USFWS and NMFS. In general, NMFS is responsible for protection of listed marine species and anadromous fish, and USFWS is responsible for other listed species.
Implementation of any project that may result in take of any species protected by ESA would be subject to approval and oversight by NMFS and USFWS, as relevant, and subject to the terms and conditions of any biological opinion (BO) from that agency. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the BOs would further ensure that no implemented project would jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Relevant ESA provisions are summarized below.
Section 9
ESA Prohibitions: ESA Section 9 prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA as endangered. Take of threatened species also is prohibited under Section 9, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. Take, as defined by ESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification.” In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction.
Section 7
ESA Authorization Process for Federal Actions: ESA Section 7 provides a means for authorizing take of threatened and endangered species by federal agencies. Under Section 7, a federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes a project activity must consult with the USFWS to ensure that its actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated Critical Habitat. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-5
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, etc.) any migratory bird listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 10, including their nests, eggs, or products. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many other species.
Federal Clean Water Act Section 404
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged material, placement of fill material, or excavation within waters of the United States and authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for such actions. “Waters of the United States” are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as “rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters and any associated wetlands.” Wetlands are defined by the CEQ as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The permit review process entails an assessment of potential adverse effects on Corps jurisdictional waters of the United States and wetlands.
Federal Clean Water Act Section 401
The mission of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implement plans that will best protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology. Section 401 of the CWA requires that:
“any applicant for a Federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State, shall provide the Federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions under the Federal Clean Water Act.” Before the Corps will issue a Section 404 permit, the Project Applicant must apply for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. A complete application for 401 Certification will include a detailed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that addresses the key water quality features of the project to ensure the integrity of water quality in the area during and after construction.
Under separate authorities granted by state law (i.e., the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act), a RWQCB may choose to regulate discharges of dredge or fill materials by issuing or -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-6
waiving (with or without conditions) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), a type of state discharge permit, instead of taking a water quality certification action. Processing of a WDR is similar to that of a Section 401 certification; however, the RWQCB has slightly more discretion to add conditions to a project under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act than under the federal CWA.
Executive Order 11990
On May 24, 1977, President Carter signed Executive Order (E.O.) 11990, requiring federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts (both long- and short-term) to wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative available. The order defi nes wetlands as areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that require saturation or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
State
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) includes mandates for persons in the State of California who tamper with, affect, or alter environmental resources. The following sections illustrate the sections of the CFGC that pertain to the proposed Project.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFW. Its intent is to prohibit take and protect state-listed endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates).
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a 2081 permit or Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the State as Fully Protected Species. California Species of Special Concern are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) project which maintains a database of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se, but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-7
Fully Protected Species (CFGC § 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515) CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 list the bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species that are identified as “fully protected.” Fully protected wildlife may not be harmed, taken, or possessed. The classification of “fully protected” was California’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those wildlife species that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Most of the fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations.
Migratory Birds (CFGC § 3500-3516, and 3800)
CFGC Section 3513 furthers the intent of the MBTA by prohibiting any take or possession of birds in California that are designated by the MBTA as migratory non-game birds, except as allowed by federal rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the MBTA. In addition, CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3800 further protect nesting birds and their parts, including passerine birds, raptors, and state “fully protected” birds. These regulations protect almost all native nesting birds, not just special-status birds.
State of California—Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code Streambeds and other drainages that occur within the area are subject to regulation by the CDFW. The CDFW considers most drainages to be “streambeds” unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. A stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel with banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or sub-surface flow that supports, or has supported, riparian vegetation.
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires any entity (e.g., person, state or local government agency, or public utility) which proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waster, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, to first notify CDFW of the project. The CDFW will review the project as it affects streambed habitats within the project area. The CDFW may then place conditions on the Section 1602 clearance to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potentially significant adverse effects within CDFW jurisdictional limits.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-8
State and Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB ) has jurisdiction throughout California and protects water quality by setting statewide policy and coordinating the nine RWQCBs in California that exercise regulatory activities by basins. The RWQCB also asserts authority over waters of the state under waste discharge requir ements pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). Waters found to be isolated and not subject to CWA regulation are often st ill regulated by the RWQCB under Porter-Cologne. If a CWA Section 404 permit is not required for an action, the RWQCB may still require a permit (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirement) under Porter-Cologne.
State of California – Porter Cologne Act
The SWRCB has ruled after the U.S. Supreme Court decisions to reduce the federal jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S., that the State would require that a Waste Discharge Report be required for any discharge of waste, including fill, into “waters of the state”, other than those projects requiring a federal Section 404 permit and the St ate’s Section 401 Certification of the federal permit, under the authority of the Porter Cologne Act. This essentially extends the State’s assumption of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, by modifying the definition of waste. The RWQCB is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Permits.
State of California—Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code These sections of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the “take or possession of birds, their nests, or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a “take.” Such a take would also violate Federal law protecting migratory birds.
Incidental Take Permits (i.e., Management Agreements) are required from the CDFW for projects that may result in the incidental take of species listed by the State of California as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The permits require that impacts to protected species be minimized to the extent possible and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
State of California—2800 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code- Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
This section of the Fish and Game Code outlin es the methodology taken to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP); however, there are no NCCP’s in effect for the project area.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-9
California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprising information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened , or Endangered vascular plant species of California. Sensitive species that occur or potentially could occur within the area are based on one or more of the following: (1) the direct observation of the species during one of the biological surveys; (2) a record reported in the CNDDB; and (3) the Project Area is within known distribution of a species and contains appropriate habitat.
Local
City of Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) serves as a guide to enable government at all levels, private enterprise, community groups, and individual citizens to make decisions and utilize community resources in a manner that will realize progress toward a common vision, as established in the plan through a community visioning process. The current General Plan includes the following policies that are applicable to biological resources within the City of Fresno:
x Policy POSS-5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support state, federal, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.
x Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multi- jurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.
x Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require 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.
x Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs. These programs will include:
o An evaluation of the site’s environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures. o A graphic depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-10
o Mitigation site preparation plans.
o Specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any revegetation.
o Water irrigation plans.
o Post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
o Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.
x Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.
x Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.
x Objective POSS-6: Maintain and restore, where feasible, the ecological values of the San Joaquin River corridor.
x Policy POSS-6-a: San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan. Support the San Joaquin River Conservancy in its efforts to update the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan by working with the other jurisdictions and the River Conservancy to create a comprehensive and feasible plan for preservation, conservation, and Parkway development.
x Policy POSS-6-b: Effects of Stormwater Discharge. Support efforts to identify and mitigate cumulative adverse effects on aquatic life from stormwater discharge to the San Joaquin River.
o Avoid discharge of runoff from urban uses to the San Joaquin River or other riparian corridors.
o Approve development on sites having drainage (directly or indirectly) to the San Joaquin River or other riparian areas upon a finding that adequate measures for preventing pollution of natural bodies of water from their runoff will be implemented.
o Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas. If unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur, remedial measures shall be promptly instituted.
x Objective POSS-7: Support the San Joaquin River Conservancy in its collaborative, multiagency efforts to develop the San Joaquin River Parkway. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-11
x Policy POSS-7-a: Preserve Wildlife Corridors. Acquire and expand natural reserves and wildlife corridors through purchase, easements, mitigation for proposed activities, or other mutually satisfactory transactions. x Policy POSS-7-b: Wildlife Corridor along San Joaquin River. Create a wildlife corridor to provide continuous open space land and water areas parallel to the San Joaquin River within the jurisdiction of the City.
o Preserve a minimum width of 200 feet of riparian vegetation on both sides of the river.
o Require the corridor to be wider when possible and/or necessary to protect additional areas of native plants and critical habitat (such as wildlife breeding areas). Re-establishment of a 200-foot or wider band of native plants is recommended in areas where 200 feet of riparian vegetation no longer exists along the river bank, to the maximum extent feasible from topologic and hydrologic standpoints.
o Allow exceptions where the minimum-width corridor is infeasible due to topography, hydrology, or other constraints. An offsetting expansion may be approved in those instances on the opposite side of the river. Incorporate the bluff face into the wildlife corridor where steep bluffs drop directly into or close to the river.
x Policy POSS-7-c: Monitoring River Corridor Conditions. Undertake periodic monitoring to determine the status of conditions and mitigation measures required for projects within, and in the vicinity of, the river corridor. o Pursue a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other agreement so that the San Joaquin River Conservancy can perform, or participate in, this monitoring program in order to furnish additional expertise, provide for cost efficiency, and to ensure consistency throughout the river corridor.
o Based on information obtained from monitoring, modifications in special permits, reclamation plans, and other documents, operating parameters for uses may be necessary to insure human health and safety and the well-being of riparian plants and wildlife.
x Policy POSS-7-d: Buffer Zones near Intensive Uses. Protect natural reserve areas and the wildlife corridor areas in the River Corridor whenever more intensive human uses exist or are proposed on adjacent lands. Buffer zones will allow multiple uses on parts of the parkway while still protecting wildlife and native plants. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-12
o Require studies of appropriate buffer widths to be approved by State and federal wildlife agencies before variances from standard buffer zone widths are granted.
o Maintain natural riparian buffer zones with appropriate native plants (seed material and cuttings locally derived).
o Incorporate open space uses such as pasture, low-intensity agricultural activities, and the “rough” or marginal areas of golf courses, into buffer zones when they constitute an improvement in habitat over a previous use or degraded area. Evaluate and address the potential impacts of construction, cultural, and operational practices (such as grading, number of livestock per acre, lighting, and use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers) before these uses are be approved for buffering. o For nearby areas of the San Joaquin River corridor outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of the City, support efforts to work with other jurisdictions to achieve this policy.
Fresno Municipal Code (Section 13-305-Tree Preservation) The Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 13-305 protects all public trees in the City including, but not limited to, trees which are affecting surface improvements or underground facilities or which are diseased, or located where construction is being considered or will occur. No person, except authorized City personnel, shall remove, destroy, deface or injure any tree on public property by any means including but not limited to: pouring material on or immediately adjacent to any tree, attaching any sign or notice to a tree without supervision of the Director, causing or encouraging fire around any tree, or covering the ground within a 4-foot-radius around any tree with concrete or other unnatural surface. Any removal of trees shall be conducted only after an evaluation and inspection by the Director, and with written authorization.
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-13
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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 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;
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 site;
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
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.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The information and analysis presented in this section are based on the Copper River Ranch Development Project – Biological Resource Evaluation (2020) prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (CEC). The Biological Resource Evaluation is provided in Appendix C. 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?
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-14
Methodology
CEC was retained to conduct a reconnaissance survey to describe the biotic resources of the proposed new 109 acres of development and to evaluate potential impacts to those resources that could result from proposed Project develo pment. CEC obtained a USFWS species list for the Project as a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey. In addition, CEC searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database searches confined to the Friant 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quad, which encompasses the Project site and the eight surrounding quads (Little Table Mtn, Millerton Lake West, Millerton Lake East, Lanes Bridge, Academy, Fresno North, Clovis, and Round Mountain). A local list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lack a special status designation by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. CEC also reviewed aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google 2020) and other sources, USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2020), and relevant literature.
Land Use and Habitats
The Project site supported residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land with patches of ruderal vegetation (Figure 3.4-1 and site photos shown in Figures 3.4-2 through 3.4-4). The area is surrounded by resi dential development to the north; residential development, portions of a golf course, and dist urbed land to the south; orchards, residential development, portions of a golf course, and disturbed land to the east; and residential development, commercial development, portions o f a g o l f c o u r s e , a n d d i s t u r b e d l a n d t o t h e west.
Reconnaissance Survey
CEC Senior Scientist Joshua Reece conducted field reconnaissance surveys of the Project site on 15 and 17 September 2020. Except where gates at residential communities precluded access, the Project site and a 50-foot buffer surrounding the Project site were walked and thoroughly inspected to evaluate and document the potential for the site to support state- or federally protected resources. The survey area also includ ed a 0.5-mile buffer around the Project site to evaluate the potential occurrence of special-status raptors (Figure 3.4-5). The survey area was -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-15
evaluated for the presence of regulated habitats, including lakes, streams, and other waters using methods described in the Wetlands Delineation Manual and regional supplement (USACE 1987, 2008) and as defined by the CDFW ( https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa) and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. All plants except ornamentals and all animals (vertebrate wildlife species) observed in the survey area were identified and documented.
Figure 3.4-2. Photograph of the Project site, looking west, showing a gated residential development.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-16
Figure 3.4-3. Photograph of the Project site, looking northeast, showing a manicured golf course.
Figure 3.4-4. Photograph of the Project site, looking east, showing disturbed land cover and an adjacent orchard.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-17
Observed Species
In total, 23 plant species (10 native and 13 no nnative) were found during the reconnaissance survey (See Table 2 of Appendix C). Seven bird species and four mammal species were also detected (Table 2 of Appendix C).
Nesting Birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds could nest on or near the Project site. Such species include, but are not limited to, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
Regulated Habitats
Artificial ponds at the golf course, as surface waters within the boundaries of the state, are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the SWRCB. However, no impacts to these features are anticipated.
Special Status Species
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (ST)
Swainson’s hawk is a state listed as threatened raptor in the family Accipitridae. It is a gregarious, migratory, breeding resident of Central California where it uses open areas including grassland, sparse shrubland, pasture, open woodland, and annual agricultural fields such as grain and alfalfa to forage on small mammals, birds, and reptiles. After breeding, it eats mainly insects, especially grasshoppers (Bechard et al. 2020). Swainson’s hawk builds a small to medium-sized nest in medium to large trees near foraging habitat. The nesting season begins in March or April in Central California when this species returns to its breeding grounds from wintering areas in Mexico and Central and South America. Nest building commences within one to two weeks of arrival to the breeding area and lasts about one week (Bechard et al. 2020).
One to four eggs are laid and incubated for about 35 days. Young typically fledge in about 38– 46 days and tend to leave the nest territory within 10 days of fledging (Bechard et al. 2020).
Swainson’s hawks depart for the non-breeding grounds between August and September.
Two CNDDB records for Swainson’s hawk, from 1956, are known from within 5 miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2020). No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey, but potential nest trees were on and within 0.5 miles of the Project site, and open grassland and agricultural fields nearby could support foraging. Therefore, this species has a low potential to occur on the Project site.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-18
Figure 3.4-2
Reconnaissance Survey Area Map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-19
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (SSSC)
Burrowing owl is a member of the family Strigidae and recognized as a species of special concern by the CDFW (CDFW 2020). Burrowing owl depends on burrow systems excavated by other species such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) (Poulin et al. 2020). Burrowing owl uses burrows for protection from predators, weather, as roosting sites, and dwellings to raise young (Poulin et al. 2020). It commonly p e r c h e s o u t s i d e b u r r o w s o n m o u n d s o f s o i l o r o n n e a r b y f e n c e p o s t s . P r e y i n c l u d e s i n s e c t s , especially grasshoppers and crickets, frogs, toads, lizards, and small mammals (Poulin et al. 2020). The nesting season begins in March and incubation lasts about 28–30 days. Females incubate eggs males forage and deliver food items to the burrow/nest; young fledge between 44 and 53 days after hatching (Poulin et al. 2020). Adults can live up to 8 years in the wild.
Two CNDDB records of burrowing owls (from 2000) are known from within 5 miles of the Project site (CNDDB 2020). Several California ground squirrel burrows were found on the Project site, although no evidence of use of the burrows by owls (e.g., feathers, guano, pellets) was observed. Nevertheless, this species has a low potential to occur on the Project site.
Impact Determination
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project could adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, two special-status animals that occur or may occur on or near the Project site. Swainson’s hawk (ST) has a low potential to occur on or near the Project site. The burrowing owl (SSSC) was not detected but also has a low potential to occur on the Project site. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, or using other heavy equipment that disturbs or harms a special-status species or substantially modifies its habitat could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (below) will be implemented to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO – 1 Protect nesting Swainson’s Hawk
1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.
2. If it is not possible to schedule work between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for active Swainson’s hawk nests within 0.5 miles of the Project site following methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If an active nest is foun d within 0.5 miles, and the qualified biologist -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-20
determines that Project activities would disrupt nesting, a construction-free buffer or limited operating period shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
BIO – 2 Protect nesting burrowing owl
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
2. If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowing owl use (e.g., feathers, guano, pellets) is detected on or within 500 feet of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the owl(s), a construction-free buffer, limited operating period, or passive relocation shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact . Based on the biological survey, as well as review of local and regional plans, policies, regulations and review of information from the CA Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities on the proposed Project site. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
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? No Impact. The survey area (Figure 3.4-5) was evaluated for the presence of regulated habitats, including lakes, streams, and other waters using methods described in the Wetlands Delineation -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-21
Manual and regional supplement (USACE 1987, 2008) and as defined by the CDFW (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa) and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Based on this evaluation, there are no federally protected wetlands on the site.
Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measure: None 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project could impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, coul d constitute a significant impact if the species is particularly rare in the region. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (below) will be implemented to reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO – 3 Protect Nesting Birds
1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.
2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre- construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. A pre- construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non- -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-22
construction related reasons. The results of th e survey shall be submitted to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to any construction activities.
e.,f. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted habitat conservati on plans, natural community conservation plans, or other conservation plans within the proposed Project site. However, the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 13-305 protects all public trees in the City including, but not limited to, trees which are affecting surface improvements or underground facilities or which are diseased, or located where construction is being considered or will occur. No person, except authorized City personnel, shall remove, destroy, deface or injure any tree on public property by any means including but not limited to: pouring material on or immediately adjacent to any tree, attaching any sign or notice to a tree without supervision of the Director, causing or encouraging fire around any tree, or covering the ground within a 4-foot-radius around any tree with concrete or other unnatural surface. Any removal of trees shall be conducted only after an evaluation and inspection by the Director, and with written authorization.
The Project site has been largely disturbed through development and grading activities and is largely void of public trees. However, in accordance with FMC Section 13-305, the Project Applicant will be required to consult the City on any public trees that may be subject to FMC Section 13-305. As this is an existing regulation, it is not considered a mitigation measure.
There are less than significant impacts regarding this impact topic.
Mitigation. None required.
Applicability of 2003 FEIR Mitigation Measures
As discussed above, the 2003 FEIR provided the mitigation measures related to biological resources. The determination of the applicability of those mitigation measures is shown in the table below. It should be noted that the mitigation measures identified herein are applicable to -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-23
the entire proposed Copper River Ranch Project (existing development area plus the additional 109 acres of new development).
2003 FEIR Mitigation Determination New Mitigation (if applicable)
2.5.1-a: No additional mitigation
is required beyond compliance
with the USACE permit.
Mitigation Measure 2.5.1-a
has been completed.
N/A
2.5.2-a: A qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction
survey for burrowing owls no
more than 30 days prior to the
onset of project construction.
This survey shall be conducted
according to methods described
in the Draft Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CDFG 1995). If preconstruction
surveys undertaken during the
breeding season (February
through July) locate active next
burrows within or near
construction zones, the
developer shall establish an
appropriate construction
-free
setback around these nests until
the conclusion of the breeding
season. A qualified ornithologist
in consultation with the CDFG
shall determine the distance of
the setback. At the conclusion of
the nesting season these owls
may be relocated as discussed
below.
x If preconstructi on
surveys undertaken
during the non-
breeding season
This previous mitigation
measure from the 2003 FEIR
is similar to the currently
proposed mitigation
measures (i.e.
preconstruction surveys,
avoidance, etc.). However,
the regulatory requirements
for these surveys have
changed since 2003.
Therefore, the proposed new
mitigation measures (see
column to the right) shall
supersede the biological
mitigation measure
contained in the
2003 FEIR.
BIO – 1 Protect nesting
Swainson’s Hawk
1. To the extent practicable,
construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the
Swainson’s hawk nesting
season, which extends
from March through
August.
2. If it is not possible to
schedule work between
September and February,
a qualified biologist shall
conduct surveys for active
Swainson’s hawk nests
within 0.5 miles of the
Project site following
methods developed by
the Swainson’s Hawk
Technical Advisory
Committee (2000). If an
active nest is found within
0.5 miles, and the
qualified biologist
determines that Project
activities would disrupt
nesting, a construction-
free buffer or limited
operating period shall be
implemented in
consultation with the
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-24
(August through
January) locate
resident owls, these
individuals may be
relocated to
alternative habitat.
The relocation of
resident owls shall
be conducted
according to a
relocation plan
prepared by a
qualified biologist in
consultation with
CDFG. Passive
relocation as
described in Draft
Report on
Burrowing Owl
Mitigation shall be
the preferred
method of
relocation. The plan
shall provide for the
owls relocation to
nearby lands
possessing available
nesting habitat.
Ground squirrel
populations and
their burrow
complexes can then
be eliminated to
prevent the return
of burrowing owls
at a later time when
construction may
occur.
x A qualified biologist
CDFW. The results of the
survey shall be submitted
to the City of Fresno
Planning and
Development Department
prior to any construction
activities.
BIO – 2 Protect nesting
burrowing owl
1. A qualified biologist shall
conduct focused
burrowing owl surveys to
assess the
presence/absence of
burrowing owl in
accordance with
guidelines in the CDFW’s
Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFG
2012). The results of the
survey shall be submitted
to the City of Fresno
Planning and
Development Department
prior to any construction
activities.
2. If a burrowing owl or sign
of burrowing owl use
(e.g., feathers, guano,
pellets) is detected on or
within 500 feet of the
Project site, and the
qualified biol ogist
determines that Project
activities would disrupt
the owl(s), a construction-
free buffer, limited
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-25
shall conduct a
preconstruction
survey for Northern
Harriers no more
than 30 days prior
to the on- set of
project
construction, if
construction is to
occur during the
breeding season
(February through
July). If active nest
burrows are located
within or near
construction zones,
the developer shall
establish an
appropriate
construction-fee
setback around
these nests until the
conclusion of the
breeding season. A
qualified
ornithologist in
consultation with
the CDFG shall
determine the
distance of the
setback. The
developer may also
disc the non- native
grassland prior to
the onset of the
breeding season.
Discing shall
prevent the growth
of dense tall grasses
favorable for
operating period, or
passive relocation shall be
implemented in
consultation with the
CDFW.
BIO – 3 Protect Nesting Birds
1. To the extent practicable,
construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the
nesting season, which
extends from February
through August.
2. If it is not possible to
schedule construction
between September and
January, pre- construction
surveys for nesting birds
shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to
ensure that no active
nests will be disturbed
during Project
implementation. A pre-
construction survey shall
be conducted by a
qualified biologist no
more than 14 days prior
to the initiation of
construction activities.
During this survey, the
qualified biologist shall
inspect all potential nest
substrates in and
immediately adjacent to
the impact areas for nests.
If an active nest is found
close enough to the
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-26
nesting Northern
Harriers.
construction area to be
disturbed by these
activities, the qualified
biologist s hall determine
the extent of a
construction-free buffer
to be established around
the nest. If work cannot
proceed without
disturbing the nesting
birds, work may need to
be halted or redirected to
other areas until nesting
and fledging are
completed or the nest has
otherwise failed for non-
construction related
reasons. The results of the
survey shall be submitted
to the City of Fresno
Planning and
Development Department
prior to any construction
activities.
Cumulative Impacts
The scope for considering cumulative impacts to biological resources are the geographic areas covered by the City of Fresno General Plan / EIR and the County of Fresno General Plan / EIR.
Mitigation measures associated with this topic are included to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources remains less than significant at a project level. Cumulative development would result in the conversion of existing habitat to urban uses. Both the City’s and County’s General Plan EIR, in addition to regional, Stat e and federal regulations, include policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with future development. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Copper River Ranch Project| Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Subsequent EIR 3.4-27
As described in this impact section, there are no known special-status species that have been observed on the Project site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 reduce all potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. As development occurs in the region, the City and County will review projects on a case-by-case basis at the time each is considered for approval. Most projects in the region would generally occur within or around urban areas that have either been previously disturbed or are near existing urban development.
However, some future projects may occur on undeveloped portions of the City and County that may result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. However, these projects would likely be required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Compliance with applicable state and federal permit requirements for these resources would be required for all future projects, which would ensure that these projects would not significantly affect sensitive biological resources or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to such resources in the area. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts to biological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Fig Garden Financial Center
Office Building - Environmental
Assessment No. P18-03659
May 2019
PREPARED BY:
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
PREPARED FOR:
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Dept.
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fig Garden Land Holdings Office Building Plan Amendment and Rezone Application No. P18-03659
Prepared for:
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact: Margo Lerwill, Supervising Planner
(559) 621-8153
Prepared by:
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
May 2019
-#20)',,3%*-.%
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Summary 1-1
1.2 Document Format 1-1
CHAPTER TWO – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Background 2-1
2.2 Project Location and Setting 2-1
2.3 Project Description 2-2
2.4 Other Required Approvals 2-7
CHAPTER THREE – INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 Environmental Checklist Form 3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-3
3.3 Determination 3-3
I. Aesthetics 3-8
II. Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-14
III. Air Quality 3-17
IV. Biological Resources 3-24
V. Cultural Resources 3-29
VI. Energy 3-32
VII. Geology and Soils 3-37
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-42
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-46
X. Hydrology 3-51
XI. Land Use and Planning 3-57
XII. Mineral Resources 3-61
XIII. Noise 3-62
XIV. Population and Housing 3-66
XV. Public Services 3-68
XVI. Recreation 3-71
XVII. Transportation / Traffic 3-72
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 3-76
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 3-78
XX. Wildfire 3-82
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-84
CHAPTER FOUR – MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 4-1
Project-Specific Mitigation Program
Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Checklist
CHAPTER FIVE – LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
(Contd.)
-#20)',,3%*-.%
LIST OF FIGURES
1 – Project Vicinity Map 2-3
2 – Site Aerial 2-4
3 – Project Master Plan 2-5
4 – Building Elevation A 3-11
5 – Building Elevation B 3-12
LIST OF TABLES
1 – Standards and Attainment Status 3-18
2 – Project Construction Emissions in Tons 3-21
3 – 2016 CA Energy Consumption 3-33
4 – Annual Project Energy Consumption by Land Use 3-35
5 – Typical Construction Noise Levels 3-63
6 – Proposed Project Trip Generation 3-73
APPENDICES
A- Air Emissions Output Table
B- Project Trip Generation Analysis
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Summary
This document, Environmental Assessment No. P18- 03659, is the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on the potential environmental effects of the Fig Garden Office Building Project (Project). The Project consists of construction and operation of a four-story 100,000 square foot office building, parking area, and related improvements. Th e proposed Project is more fully described in Chapter Two – Project Description.
The City of Fresno will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
1.2 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five chapters, and appendices. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of project obje ctives and components. Chapter 3, Initial Study Checklist, presents the CEQA ch ecklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the pr oposed project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a de scription of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements t hat would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, Mitigation and Monito ring Program provides the list of applicable mitigation measures that must be complied with. There are two mitigation lists: a Project-specific mitigation program and the City’s General Plan Master EIR mitigation checklist. Both are applicable to the Project. Chapter 5, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.
Environmental impacts are separated into the following categories:
Potentially Significant Impact . This category is applicable if th ere is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Less Than Significant After Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-2
Significant Impact.” The lead agency must descri be the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than si gnificant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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.)
Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the basic purpose of the CEQA process as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a) is to:
(1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate if it is determined that:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
This document is tiering from the City of Fresno Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007121033) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. The MEIR and -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 1
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-3
supporting documents are available for review at the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721.
The Initial Study contained in Chapter Three of this document has determined that the proposed Project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR but that it is not fully within the scope of the MEIR because the proposed project could have a signif icant effect on the environment that was not examined in the MEIR. However, 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. The project specific mitigation measures and all applicable mitigation measures contained in the MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist will be imposed upon the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-1
Project Description
2.1 Project Background
The proposed project description and actions have been distributed internally to applicable City departments (Planning, Public Works, Police/Fire, etc.) for review. All applicable development requirements have been applied to the project either through project design, conditions of approval, or as mitigation measures outlined in this document.
The project is being proposed by the project applicant to take advantage of the site’s strategic location in an area that is suitable for large scale offices that serve a variety of uses. The location provides accessibility, infrastructure and demand in an area that provides an in-fill development opportunity within one of the City’s busiest shopping / office areas.
2.2 Project Location and Setting
The proposed Office Complex is located on 1.08 acres at an existing office / commercial area north of Fig Garden Village (east of N. Palm Avenue at San Jose Avenue / Colonial Avenue). The site is known as the Fig Garden Financial Center located at 5204 North Palm Avenue in Fresno, CA 93704. Specifically, the proposed Office Complex is on APN 417-140-21. The proposed new parking area is on a 2.35 acre lot (APN 417-231-16).
Additional components associated with the project (infrastructure, street abandonment, etc.) are on portions of APNs 417-140-26, 417-231-17 and 417-231-19.
See Figure 1 (Project Vicinity Map), Figure 2 (Site Aerial) and Figure 3 (Project Master Plan).
The site is located at the existing Fig Garden Financial Center adjacent to Fig Garden Village in a relatively busy mixed-use area including shopping, services and housing in central Fresno. The immediate vicinity is comprised of large office buildings, parking areas and residential housing.
To the north and east of the proposed office building is residential housing while existing office buildings are located to the south and west. The proposed new parking area is surrounded by residential housing to the north and south, a vacant lot to the east, and an office building to the west. The area is highly disturbed with urban uses.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-2
Zoning
APN 417-140-21 is zoned RS-5/EQ (Residential Single-Family / Equine Overlay) APN 417-231-16 is zoned RMX (Regional Mixed-Use)
APN 417-140-26 is zoned RMX/cz (Regional Mixed-Use / Conditions of Zoning) APN 417-231-19 is zoned RMX/cz (Regional Mixed-Use / Conditions of Zoning)
2.3 Project Description
The project consists of construction and operation of a four-story, 100,000 square foot professional office building on a 1.08 acre lot. The footprint of the building is approximately 25,000 square feet with the remainder being occupied by hardscape, parking, landscaping and related features. Each floor of the building will occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of space.
The building will be constructed of concrete, steel and wood-frame structures. Landscaping is proposed along the site’s perimeter, entrance and within the parking areas. Some existing trees on the site will be removed to accommodate the project.
Site Access
The project site will be accessed from Palm Avenue through the adjacent Fig Garden Financial Center’s driveway and from Shaw Avenue via private driveways through Fig Garden Village Shopping Center. The new parking area can also be accessed from W. San Jose Avenue.
Pedestrian access will remain from the surrounding areas.
The project also includes additional parking to accommodate 329 additional parking spaces (the City requires 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of buil ding area which would require a minimum of 250 parking spaces). The existing 140 parking spaces located at the site of the proposed office building will be demolished. However, a total of 470 “new” spaces will be created, thus resulting in a net new parking capacity of 329 spaces.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-3
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-4
Figure 2
Site Aerial
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-5
Figure 3
Project Master Plan
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-6
Parking
To accommodate the required parking spaces needed for the office building, the project applicant will construct an additional parking area on a 2.35 acre lot just south of San Jose Avenue (See Figure 2). Previously, this site consisted of a 44-unit apartment complex that had been abandoned for several years and was demolished.
Other Improvements
Landscaping, walkways, security lighting, trash enclosures and related appurtenances will be installed. The project also includes a small park area that will be located near the new parking area between the parking stalls and W. San Jose Avenue. The park area will be open to the public.
Street Abandonment
To accommodate the new office building and parking area, the project will require abandonment of a portion N. Colonial Avenue and W. San Jose Avenue where those streets meet adjacent to the project site. The intention is to create a “dead-end” cul-de-sac with an adequately sized turn- around pocket just south of the intersection of N. Colonial Avenue and W. San Ramon Avenue and a second cul-de-sac turn-around pocket on W. San Jose Avenue just north of the proposed new parking area. This will eliminate thru-traffic along this route. However, access to the project will be provided from W. San Jose Avenue. The turn-around pockets have been adequately sized for emergency vehicles and will provide emergency vehicle access to the site and surrounding area as needed. Pedestrian access will be maintained in the area.
Infrastructure
The project will be required to tie into existing infrastructure in the area for sewer, water and storm drain. The existing pipelines for these services are located within the adjacent streets. The project developer will be required to pay for all improvements related to obtaining these facilities to serve the project. This includes constructing appropriately sized water mains that will provide adequate water pressure for fire flow and project water use. The project will require installation of sewer mains to serve the project including any sewer easements that will be required by the City. Storm water will be controlled through implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan and will be directed to the existing storm drains in W. San Jose Avenue. More detailed descriptions of project infrastructure requirements are included in Chapter Three.
The project has been reviewed by City of Fresno Public Works and specifications pertaining to project financial responsibilities for accessing City-provided services have been made conditions of project approval.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 2
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-7
Project Schedule
The project developer intends to begin construction in 2019 for completion in 2020.
Entitlements
The project will require the following entitlements from the City of Fresno:
x General Plan Amendment for 417-140-21 from planned land use from RM (Residential Medium Density) to RMX (Regional Mixed-Use);
x Rezone Application for 417-140-21 from RS-5 / EQ (Residential Single-Family / Equine Overlay) zone district to the RMX (Regional Mixed Use) zone district; x Rezone Application to Modify Conditions of Zoning for 417-231-19 and 417-140-26 to remove previously established conditions of zoning;
x Lot merger or lot line adjustment with cross access agreement; x Street abandonment; and
x Grading and building permits.
2.4 Other Required Approvals
The proposed Project would include, but not be limited to, the following regulatory requirements:
x The adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Fresno. x Compliance with other federal, state and local requirements such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for a dust control plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. x City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
x Fresno Irrigation District
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Chapter 3
IMPACT ANALYSIS
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-1
Initial Study Checklist
3.1 Environmental Checklist Form
Project title: Fig Garden Land Holdings Office Building Plan Amendment / Rezone Application No. P18-03659
Lead agency name and address:
City of Fresno
Development and Resource Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact person and phone number:
Margo Lerwill
City of Fresno
(559) 621-8153
Project location:
The proposed Office Complex is located on 1.08 acres at an existing office / commercial area north of Fig Garden Village (east of N. Palm Avenue at San Jose Avenue / Colonial Avenue). The site is known as the Fig Garden Financial Center located at 5204 North Palm Avenue in Fresno, CA 93704. Specifically, the proposed Office Complex is on APN 417-140-21. The proposed new parking area is on a 2.35 acre lot (APN 417-231-16).
Additional components associated with the Project (infrastructure, street vacation, etc.) are on portions of APNs 417-140-26, 417-231-17 and 417-231-19.
See Figure 1 (Project Vicinity Map) and Figure 2 (Site Aerial).
Project sponsor’s name/address:
Assemi Group, Inc.
Jeff Roberts
1396 W. Herndon Ave.
Fresno, CA 93711
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-2
General plan designation:
Residential – Medium Density
Zoning:
APN 417-140-21 is zoned RS-5/EQ (Residential Single-Family / Equine Overlay) APN 417-231-16 is zoned RMX (Regional Mixed-Use)
APN 417-140-26 is zoned RMX/cz (Regional Mixed-Use / Conditions of Zoning) APN 417-231-19 is zoned RMX/cz (Regional Mixed-Use / Conditions of Zoning) Description of project:
The Project consists of construction and operation of a four-story, 100,000 square foot professional office building and a new parking area (See Section 2.3 for a full description).
Surrounding land uses/setting:
The site is located at the existing Fig Garden Financial Center adjacent to Fig Garden Village in a relatively busy mixed-use area including shopping, services and housing in central Fresno. The immediate vicinity is comprised of large office buildings, parking areas and residential housing. To the north and east of the proposed office building is residential housing while existing office buildings are located to the south and west. The proposed new parking area is surrounded by residential housing to the north and south, a vacant lot to the east, and an office building to the west. The area is highly disturbed with urban uses.
California Native American Tribal Consultation:
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun or is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, requesting a contact list of applicable Native -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-3
American Tribes, which was provided to the City. The City provided letters to the listed Tribes, notifying them of the Project and requesting consultation, if desired.
A total of ten Tribes were contacted of which four (4) indicated they had no comment, and the remaining six (6) did not respond to the invitation to comment and consult. Refer to Section XVIII – Tribal Cultural Resources for more information.
Other public agencies whose approval or consultation is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, participation agreements):
x The adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Fresno. x Compliance with other federal, state and local requirements such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for a dust control plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. x City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
x Fresno Irrigation District
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-4
3.2 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 Resources
and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory
Findings of
Significance
3.3 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
___
I find that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR and that it is fully within the scope of the MEIR because it would have no additional significant effects that were not examined in the MEIR such that no new additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be required. Al l applicable mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checkli st shall be imposed upon the proposed project. A FINDING OF CONFORMITY will be prepared.
_X_
I find that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR but that it is not fully within the scope of the MEIR because the proposed pro ject could have a -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-5
significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the MEIR. However, 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. The project s pecific mitigation measures and all applicable mitigation measures contained in the MEIR Mitigatio n Measure Monitoring Checklist will be imposed upon the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
___
I find that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR but that it MAY have a significant effect on the environment that was not examined in the MEIR, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to analyze the potentially significant effects not examined in the MEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21157.1(d) and CEQA Guidelines 15178(a).
Margo Lerwill, Supervising Planner
Date
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT ASSESSED IN THE MEIR:
1. For purposes of this MEIR Initial Study, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:
a. “No Impact” means the subsequent project will not cause any additional significant effect related to the threshold under consideration which was not previously examined in the MEIR.
b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR, but that impact is less than significant;
c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorpor ation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant.
d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is an additional potentially significant effect related to the threshold under consideration that was not previously examined in the MEIR.
2. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-6
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 pote ntially 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. A "Finding of Conformity" is a determination based on an initial study that the proposed project is a subsequent project identified in the MEIR and that it is fully within the scope of the MEIR because it would have no additional significant effects that were not examined in the MEIR.
6. "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 Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
7. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to th e tiering, program EIR or MEIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the MEIR or another earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Les s 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.
8. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-7
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordi nances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, includ e a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
9. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
10.This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
11.The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
EThe mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-8
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
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 thos
e that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The Project is located within an urbanized area in the northwest portion of Fresno, in the Fig Garden community. The property is situated near the northeast corner of Palm Avenue and Shaw Avenue, and is bounded by the Fig Garden Financial Center to the west, West San Ramon Avenue, North Colonial Avenue and West San Jose Avenue to the east and northeast, and the Fig Garden Village shopping center to the southwest.
The existing visual character of the site consists of a vacant parcel (location of the proposed office building), parking areas and a vacant lot where a previous apartment building was demolished. The remainder of the site contains a number of trees, including redwood, pine, palm, olive, and fig species. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-9
Views of the existing development portion of the Fig Garden Financial Center site from the residential neighborhoods to the north and east are impeded by existing block walls and trees. More distant views of the existing Fig Garden Financial Center may be available from the Fig Garden Shopping Center.
Views of the Project site are available from surrounding streets and existing residential areas.
RESPONSES
a. Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
No Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resource in the Project area. Views of these distant mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of the nature of the Project, distance and limited visibility of these features. The City of Fresno does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected.”
The Project site is within an urbanized area of Fr esno. The Fig Garden Financial Center is currently occupied by three 60-foot office buildings that are similar in size and nature to the proposed Project.
There are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site. Visual character of the site is addressed further in response c. below.
The nearest eligible scenic highway is a section of SR 168 which is located over 20 miles east of the site. However, the Project is not visible to or from this eligible scenic highway due to intervening land uses.
Therefore, the Project has no impact on scenic vistas or designated scenic resources or highways.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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 regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings by co nstructing a new four-story office building and associated parking area. The building will be approximately 60 feet in height. Elevations of the -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-10
building are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, lighting, parking and signage. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits. The review shall be substantially based on the building plans and elevations illustrated within this document.
The Project will require removal of some trees on site. However, trees and other landscaping will be integrated along the building perimeter, entrance, and within the parking areas. In addition, a small park will be installed next to the new parking area along W. San Jose Avenue.
The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large City urban areas and are generally expected from residents of the Ci ty. These improvements would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area and would not diminish the visual quality of the area, as they would be consistent with the existing visual setting. The Project itself is not visually imposing against the scale of the existing adjacent office buildings and nature of the surrounding area.
Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the area.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-11
Figure 4
Office Building Elevation A
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-12
Figure 5
Office Building Elevation B
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-13
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. With the exception of windows, the Project does not propose any significant sources of glare. The use of standard windows in the proposed four-story office building would not result in significant glare impacts. Substantial portions of the overall Project site are currently predominantly impacted by light and glare from the adjacent Fig Garden Shopping and Financial Centers and associated lighting sources. The majority of the Project site is currently vacant and the only sources of night time light are street lamps and security lighting.
The proposed Project would require night lighting on the outside of the building and within the parking areas for security purposes. Additional night lighting sources on the Project site, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that could impact surrounding adjacent residential uses.
This would create new sources of light that could potentially have a significant impact on nighttime light levels in the area. During the entitlement process, sta ff will ensure that lights are located in areas that will minimize light sources to the neighboring properties. Further, Mitigation Measures (MM) AES-1 through MM AES-3 from the General Plan MEIR require lighting systems to be shielded to direct light to ground surfaces and orient light away from adjacent properties. In addition, MM AES – 5 requires use of non-reflective building materials to reduce glare impacts. As a result, the Project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
In addition, a condition of approval will require that lighting, where provided for security and to illuminate parking area and public streets, shall be ho oded and so arranged and controlled so as not to cause a nuisance either to traffic or to the living environment. The amount of light shall be provided according to the standards of the Department of Publ ic Works. As a result, the Project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
Mitigation Measures: General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures AES – 1, AES – 2, AES – 3 and AES – 5. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures, the Project will not result in any aesthetic impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-14
II. AGRICULTURE AND
FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
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))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
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?
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-15
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Fresno is located in Fresno County, which is a nationally-leading agricultural producer. The City’s General Plan contains several policies intended to protect agricultural resources. The Project site, however, does not contain any agricultural resource and therefore, the City’s policies are not applicable.
There are no agricultural resources near the site or in the surrounding area.
RESPONSES
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Fa rmland 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? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
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?
No Impact. There are no agricultural resources or forest lands present on the Project site, which consists of “Urban and Built-Up Land” as designated in the 2014 Rural Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important Farmland Map of the California Department of Conservation. Urban and Built-Up Land is not afforded protection under CEQA as it typically consists of land that is not suitable for agricultural uses. Since the majority of the site is developed, there are no existing agricultural uses or operations within the Project boundaries, nor in the immediate vicinity. The proposed Project would not convert prime farmland, conflict with an existing agricultural use, or result in the conversion of existing farmland. Additionally, no Williamson Act contracted lands would be impacted due to the Project.
The proposed Project does not conflict with any fore st land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land. The proposed Project does not include any changes which will affect the existing environment.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-16
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
In conclusion, the Project will not result in any agriculture or forestry impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-17
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors or adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The climate of the City of Fresno and the San Joaquin Valley is characterized by long, hot summers and stagnant, foggy winters. Precipitation is low and temperature inversions are common. These characteristics are conducive to the formation and retention of air pollutants and are in part influenced by the surrounding mountains which intercept precipitation and act as a barrier to the passage of cold air and air pollutants.
The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Stan dards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.
Air quality plans or attainment plans are used to bring the applicable air basin into attainment with all state and federal ambient air quality standards designed to protect the health and safety of residents within that air basin. Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment”, “non- -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-18
attainment”, or “extreme non-attainment” areas for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the State standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The San Joaquin Valley is designated as a State and Federal extreme non- attainment area for O3, a State and Federal non-attain ment area for PM2.5, a State non-attainment area for PM10, and Federal and State attainment area for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.
Standards and attainment status for listed pollutants in the Air District can be found in Table 1. Note that both state and federal standards are presented.
Table 1
Standards and Attainment Status for Listed Pollutants in the Air District Federal Standard California Standard
Ozone 0.075 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.07 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)
Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 35.0 ppm (1-hr
avg)
9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 20.0 ppm (1-hr
avg)
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual avg) 0.30 ppm (annual avg) 0.18 ppm (1-hr avg)
Sulfur Dioxide 0.03 ppm (annual avg) 0.14 ppm
(24-hr avg) 0.5 ppm (3-hr avg)
0.04 ppm (24-hr avg) 0.25 ppm
(1hr avg)
Lead 1.5 μg/m3 (calendar quarter) 0.15
μg/m3 (rolling 3-month avg)
1.5 μg/m3 (30-day avg)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 μg/m3 (24-hr avg) 20 μg/m3 (annual avg) 50 μg/m3 (24-hr avg)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 μg/m3 (annual avg) 35 μg/m3 (24-hr avg) 12 μg/m3 (annual avg)
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Additional State regulations include:
CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program – This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common cons truction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may op erate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.
U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program – The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off-road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off- road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off-road diesel equipment throughout the state.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-19
California Global Warming Solutions Act – Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions levels.
The Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) prepared for the Fresno General Plan and Policy RC- 4-c of the Fresno General Plan require that comput er models used by the SJVAPCD be used to analyze development projects and estimate future air pollutant emissions that can be expected to be generated from operational emissions (vehicular traffic associated with the project), area-wide emissions (sources such as ongoing maintenance activities and use of appliances), and construction activities.
CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and en vironmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle and off-road equipment use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation p lanting and/or removal, and water use. Further, the model identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from measures chosen by the user. The GHG mitigation measures were developed and adopted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA).
In addition to the above-mentioned factors, the CalEEMod computer model evaluates the following emissions: ozone precursors (Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)) and NOX; CO, SOX, both regulated categories of particulate matter, and the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). The model incorporates geographically-customized data on local vehicles, weather, and SJVAPCD Rules.
CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate construction and operational (vehicle trips) emissions resulting from both phases of the proposed Project.
RESPONSES
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-20
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). At the Federal level, the SJVAB is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, attainment for PM10 and CO, and nonattainment fort PM2.5. At the State level, the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. Although the Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, areas must still attain this standard, and the SJVAPCD recently requested an EPA finding that the SJVAB has attained the standard based on 2011-2013 data1.
To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
x Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (2004);
x 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard; x 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation; and x 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
Because of the region’s non-attainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10, if the Project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG or NOx), PM 10, or PM2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the proj ect uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project uses were to result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.
The annual significance thresholds to be used for the Project for construction and operational emissions are as follows2:
x 10 tons per year ROG;
x 10 tons per year NOx;
x 15 tons per year PM10; and
x 15 tons per year PM2.5.
The Project will result in both construction emissions and operational emissions as described below.
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. Page 28. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed January 2016. 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Control District – Air Quality Threshold of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed January 2019. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-21
Site preparation and Project construction would involve demolition of paving/asphalt, excavation, grading, hauling, and various activities needed to construct the Project. During construction, the Project could generate pollutants such as hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and suspended PM. A major source of PM would be windblown dust generated during construction activities. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Vehicles leaving the site could deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions would primarily be generated from vehicles traveling to and from the office building. According to the Trip Generation Analysis prepared for the Project, the office building will generate approximately 993 trips per day. There are no substantial stationary emission generators associated with the Project.
Total Project Emissions
The estimated annual construction and operatio nal emissions are shown below. The California Emissions Estimator (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate construction and operational (vehicle trips) emissions resulting from both phases of the proposed Project. The modeling is based on the square footage of the office building, constr uction activities, and Project trip generation (see traffic section of this document for Project trip generation information). Modeling results are provided in Table 2 and the CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix A.
Table 2
Proposed Project Construction and Operation Emissions
VOC (ROG)
(tons/year)
NOx
(tons/year)
PM10
(tons/year)
PM2.5
(tons/year
Years 2019/2020 Construction
(combined)
0.8419 1.8806 0.2139 0.1404
Year 2020 Operation 2.4214 7.7201 0.6848 0.3271
Total Estimated Emissions 3.2633 9.6007 0.8987 0.4675
Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 15
Significant? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod results (Appendix A). Crawford & Bowen Planning (2019) -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-22
As demonstrated in Table 2, estimated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM 10, and PM 2.5. As a result, the Project uses would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional air quality attainment plans, and would not result in a significant contribution to the region’s air quality non-attainment status
3. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles.
The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determ ine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of roadways in the Project vicinity.
As further discussed in the Transportation/Traffic checklist evaluation, the Project would not generate substantial traffic (less than 1,000 trips per day) that would reduce the level of service on local roadways. Therefore, the Project would not significantly contribute to an exceedance that would exceed state or federal CO standards. Additionally, as the estimated construction and operational emissions are below SJVAPCD thresholds, any cumulative considerable increase in criteria pollutants would be less than significant.
As described above, the Project will not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to existing or projec ted air quality violations, impacts, or increases of criteria pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley region is under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The proposed Project will comply with all applicable air quality plans. Therefore, no violations of air quality standards will occur and no net increase of pollutants will occur.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project site. In addition, once the Project is operational, there would be no source of odors from the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. Page 65. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed January 2019. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-23
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
In conclusion, the Project will not result in an y air quality impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-24
IV. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
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?
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-25
IV. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
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?
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?
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed Project site is located in a portion of the central San Joaquin Valley that has, for decades, experienced intensive agricultural and urban distur bances. Like most of California, Fresno and the Central San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm dry summers are followed by cool moist winters. Summer te mperatures usually exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely raise much above 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation within the proposed Project site is about 10 inches, almost 85% of which falls be tween the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and storm-water readily infiltrates the soils of the surrounding the sites.
Native plant and animal species once abundant in the region have become locally extirpated or have experienced large reductions in their populations due to conversion of upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats to agricultural and urban uses. Remaining native habitats are particularly valuable to native wildlife species including special status species that still persist in the region.
Over the years, the Fresno area has been substantially disturbed by agricultural and residential activities, with lands within the City itself having primarily been converted to urban development.
The Project area is level (nearly flat) and has two predominate habitat types: landscape and ruderal. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-26
The potential ground-disturbance areas associated with the Project consist of asphalt paved parking areas, a vacant dirt lot void of vegetation, and some landscaping/trees. The site is completely surrounded by intense urban development.
RESPONSES
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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project area and vicinity consist of developed land uses. Existing development has altered the na tural landscape by introducing non-native plant species and removing potentially suitable natural habitat for sensitive plant or animal species within the Project area. The vegetation found within and along the Project area consists of ornamental non- native species that provide little or no biological importance and value.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was examined to determine if any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species were located in or near the Proposed Project Area. The CNDDB did not identify any species within the Proposed Project area or site. There are no reported records of special status species (which included both listed species and species of concern or of statewide importance).
However, both raptors and migratory birds and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712 (MBTA). The proposed Project will likely require removal of some trees to accommodate the Project. Tree removal could remove an active nest at the time of Project commencement or construction near an active nest could result in nest abandonment. Species with some likelihood to occur (at least for foraging) at the Project site include, but are not limited to, the following: red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting and foraging similarities all ow for their concurrent discussion. Impacts to nesting birds is potentially significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 from the General Plan MEIR would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure consists of preconstruction surveys and timing of construction in relation to potential nesting birds in the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measure BIO – 4. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-27
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located in an urban area that is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. The site is not located within an established fish or wildlife migratory corridor. Therefore, no impacts to 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 would occur as a result of this Project.
Mitigation Measures: None 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 Impact. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the dredge and fill of “Waters of the U.S.” through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This proposed Project site and area are urbanized and does not contain federally protected waters or wetlands. Therefore, no impacts would occur on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal po ol, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means as a result of this Proposed Project. As such, there would be no impacts associated with the proposed improvements.
Mitigation Measures: None 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?
No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located in an urban area that is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. The site is not located within an established fish or wildlife migratory corridor. Therefore, no impacts to 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 would occur as a result of this Project. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-28
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant. The City’s General Plan Parks, Open Space and Schools Element contains several objectives and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources. Most of the policies pertain to general long-term protection and preservation of biological resources including providing buffers for natural areas, implementing habitat restoration where applicable, protection/enhancement of the San Joaquin River area, and other similar policies. Since the Project is located in a highly disturbed urban area with minimal biological resources and does not include significant impacts to protected plant or animal species, the Project does not conflict with any adopted policies pertaining to biological resources. The Project is also required to implement Municipal Code Chapter 13 Article 3 – Street Tr ees and Parkways pertaining to tree removal and replacement. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project site is not subject to any ad opted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other conservation plan, as there are no adopted plans. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures included, the Project will not result in any biological impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015 prepared for the Fresno General Plan. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-29
V. CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Archaeological resources are plac es where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric (before the introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic (after the introduction of writing). The majority of such places in this region are associated with either Native Am erican or Euroamerican occupation of the area. The most frequently encountered prehistoric and early historic Native American archaeological sites are village settlements with residential areas and sometimes cemeteries; temporary camps where food and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly occupied sites where tools were manufactured or repaired; and special-use areas like caves, rock shelters, and si tes of rock art. Historic archaeological sites may include foundations or features such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps.
The City of Fresno lies at the intersection of wh ere ethnographers generally recognize three cultural- geographical divisions of Yokuts: Foothills, Northern Valley, and Southern Valley. The Foothill Yokuts included about 15 named tribes, representing the eastern third of the 40 to 50 recorded Yokuts tribes. The immediate Project vicinity consists of intense urban uses.
The Project site has been subject to several environmental evaluations for a variety of proposed land uses including residential and commercial. As such, previous cultural resource evaluations have taken place for the Project site. The most recent study was a Cultural Resources Literature and Field Review prepared by Basin Research Associates, Inc. (January 2010) and a Historical Evaluation for the property at 507 W. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-30
San Jose Avenue (Johnson Architecture, January 2010). Since cultural resources tend to be stationary, it can be reasonably assumed that the cultural evaluation that occurred in 2010 is still applicable, since the site remains undeveloped.
The prehistoric and historic site records and literature search was completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (CHRIS/SSJVIC), California State University Bakersfield (File RS# 09- 427, November 20, 2009). Specialized listings for cultural resources consulted by the SSJVIC include the Historic Properties Directory for Fresno County with the most recent updates of the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest as well as other evaluations of properties reviewed by the State of California Office of Historic Preserva tion. Other sources consulted by the SSJVIC include California Inventory of Historic Resources, Califo rnia Points of Historical Interest, and California Register. In addition, The California History Plan and Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California, Historic Properties Directory and available local an d regional surveys/inventories/historic maps were consulted.
The records search found no recorded cultural resources (including archaeological sites and architectural properties) located within or adjacent to the proposed Project or within 0.25 miles. This review included cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Landmark s, and the California Points of Historical Interest. None of the archaeological compliance reports on file at th e CHRIS/SSJVIC include the Project. The review of the Sacred Lands Inventory by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was negative (Dave Singleton, NAHC, November 2009).
No additional archaeological or historic resources were identified within or near the Project site.
RESPONSES
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. As discussed above, no historic resources were identified within or near the Project site.
Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-31
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project area is highly disturbed, consisting of office buildings, parking lots and residential housing. There are no known or visible cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains that exist on the surface of the Project area. Therefore, it is determined that the Project has low potential to impact any sensitive resources and no further cultural resources work is required unless Project plans change to include work not currently identified in the Project description.
Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the Project area, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excava tion and/or grading activities. The General Plan MEIR contains mitigation measures CUL – 1 and CU L – 4 pertaining to protection of cultural resources if they are discovered during construction and will be implemented to ensure that Project will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL – 1 and CUL - 2. See attached MEIR Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist.
In conclusion, with MEIR mitigation measures incorporated, the Project will not result in any cultural or historical resource impacts beyond those analyzed in MEIR SCH No. 2012111015.
-#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-32
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
California’s total energy consumption is second-highest in the nation, but, in 2016, the state’s per capita energy consumption ranked 48 th, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs. In 2017, California ranked second in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation and first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources while also in 2017, solar PV and solar thermal installations provided about 16% of California’s net electricity generation.4 Energy usage is typically quantified using the Britis h thermal unit (BTU). As a point of reference, the approximately amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are as follows:
Energy Source BTUs5
Gasoline 120,429 per gallon
Natural Gas 1,037 per cubic foot
Electricity 3,412 per kilowatt-hour
4 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed January 2019. 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy Units and Calculators Explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_energy_units. Accessed January 2019. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-33
California electrical consumption in 2016 was 7,830.8 trillion BTU 6, as provided in Table 3, while total electrical consumption by Fresno County in 2017 was 25.457 trillion BTU.7 Table 3 – 2016 California Energy Consumption8
End User BTU of energy
consumed (in trillions)
Percentage of total
consumption
Residential 1,384.4 17.7
Commercial 1,477.2 18.9
Industrial 1,854.3 23.7
Transportation 3,114.9 39.8
Total 7,830.8 --
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that approximately 25.1 million automobiles, 5.7 million trucks, and 889,024 motorcycles were registered in the state in 2017, resulting in a total estimated 339.8 billion vehicles miles traveled (VMT). 9 Within Fresno County, an estimated 8.2 million vehicle miles were traveled in 2017 for an average of 22,556 per day.10 Applicable Regulations
California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 comprises the California Energy Code, which was adopted to ensure that building construction, system desi gn and installation achieve energy efficiency. The California Energy Code was first established in 1978 by the CEC in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption, and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The standards are updated periodically to increase the baseline energy efficiency requirements. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements to enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.
Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity production
6 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed January 2019. 7 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2019. 8 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed January 2019. 9 Caltrans. 2017. California Transportation Quick Facts. http://www.dot.ca.gov/drisi/library/qf/qf2017.pdf. Accessed January 2019 10 Caltrans. 2017. Fresno County Transportation Quick Facts. http://www.dot.ca.gov/drisi/library/qfco/fre/fre2017.pdf. Accessed January 2019. -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-34
by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.
California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part II, CALGreen) The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen in Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code) for all new construction statewide on July 17, 2008. Originally a volunteer measure, the code became mandatory in 2010. The most recent update was 2016. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. The 2016 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; water use; weather resistance and moisture management; construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling; building maintenance and operation; pollutant control; indoor air quality; environmental comfort; and outdoor air quality.
Mandatory measures for residential development pertain to green building; planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; ma terial conservation and resource efficiency; environmental quality; and installer and special inspector qualifications.
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350)
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) was passed by California Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, and establishes new clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the year 2030 and beyond. SB 350 establishes a greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels for the State of California, further enhancing the ability for the state to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107)
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was amended under SB 107 to require accelerated energy reduction goals by requiring that by the year 2010, 20 percent of electricity sales in the state be served by renewable energy resources. In years following its adoption, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed, requiring electricity retail sellers to provide 33 percent of their service loads with renewable energy by the year 2020 . In 2011, SB X1-2 was signed, aligning the RPS target with the 33 percent requirement by the year 2020. This new RPS applied to all state electricity retailers, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electrical service providers, and community choice aggregators. All entities included under the RPS were required to adopt the RPS 20 percent by year 2020 reduction goal by the end of 2013, adopt a reduction goal of 25 percent by the end of 2016, and meet the 33 percent reduction goal by the end of 2020. In addition, the Air Resources Board, -#20)',,3%*-.%
Fig Garden Office Complex | Chapter 3
CITY OF FRESNO | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-35
under Executive Order S-21-09, was required to adopt regulations consistent with these 33 percent renewable energy targets.
RESPONSES
a. Result in potentially significant environmental im pact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes constructing an office complex on a 1.08- acre vacant lot and constructing a parking lot on a 2.35-acre lot that previously housed a 44-unit apartment structure (since demolished). The Project would introduce energy usage on a site that is currently demanding minimal energy. By comparison , at buildout, the Project would consume large amounts of energy in both the short-term during Project construction and in the long-term during Project operation.
During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.