25-1751 Non-Confidential Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration — Fresno City Council, January 15, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

RECIRCULATED PUBLIC DRAFT

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
For
Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project
1941 North Golden State Boulevard
Fresno, CA 93705

State Clearinghouse Number: 2024070976

Prepared by
Soar Environmental Consulting
1322 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 400
Fresno, CA 93710

NOVEMBER 2024

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................. 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Lead Agency ................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Initial Study .......................................................................................... 1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................... 2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ........ 3

APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................... 5 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 13 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ....................................... 14 DETERMINATION: ................................................................................................. 14 I. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................. 17 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................... 20 III. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 24 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 34 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 39 VI. ENERGY .................................................................................................................. 45 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................... 47 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................ 54 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ............................................................. 61 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................... 67 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................... 76 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 78 XIII. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 80 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................. 83 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 85 XVI. RECREATION ....................................................................................................... 88 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................ 90 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 94 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................. 99 XX. WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................ 103 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................... 106

Figures

Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity ......................................................................... 11 Figure 2 - Project Site Plan ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 3 - City of Fresno Official Zoning Map ................................................................ 13

Tables

Table 1 - SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance................................................. 26 Table 2 - Construction Emissions Summary ................................................................. 27 Table 3 - Operational Emissions Summary ................................................................... 29 Table 4 - Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary .........................................

Table 5 - Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary ...........................................

Appendices

Appendix A – Soar Environmental Consulting. 2023. CalEEMod Air Quality/GHG Study for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, Fresno, CA 93705

Appendix B – Soar Environmental Consulting. 2023. Biological Resource Assessment for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, Fresno, CA 93705

Appendix C – Soar Environmental Consulting. 2023. Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, Fresno, CA 93705 (CONFIDENTIAL)

Appendix D – AB 52: Tribal Consultation (CONFIDENTIAL)

450517v1
Appendix E—Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for Three Palms Mobile Home Park Collections and Disposal Project.
1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Introduction

This document is an Initial Study that summarizes the technical studies prepared for the proposed Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project and provides justification for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). This document has been prepared in accordance with the current California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines.

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project (proposed Project). Mitigation measures have been proposed to avoid or minimize any significant impacts that were identified.

Lead Agency

The Lead Agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for implementing a proposed Project. Accordingly, the City of Fresno (City) is the CEQA Lead Agency.

Purpose of the Initial Study

CEQA requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental effects of the agency’s actions that meet CEQA’s definition of a “Project.” Briefly summarized, a “Project” is an action that has the potential to result in direct or indi rect physical changes in the environment. A Project includes the agency’s direct activities as well as activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency’s implementation of CEQA are found in the “CEQA Guidelines” (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).

Provided that a Project is not exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency’s consideration of its potential environmental effects is the preparation of an Initial Study.

The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the Project would involve “significant” environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA, and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would avoid significant impacts or reduce them to a level that is less than significant. If the Initial Study does not identify significant impacts, t hen the agency prepares a Negative Declaration. If the Initial Study notes significant impacts but also identifies mitigation measures that would reduce these significant impacts to a level that is less than significant, then the agency prepares a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

If a Project would involve significant impacts that cannot be practicably mitigated, then the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. The agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report without an Initial Study.

The proposed Project is a “Project” as defined by CEQA and is not exempt from CEQA consideration. The City has determined that the Project may potentially have significant environmental impacts and therefore would require preparation of an Initial Study. T his Initial Study describes the proposed Project and its environmental setting, discusses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and identifies feasible mitigation measures 2 that would eliminate any potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant.

This Initial Study is a public information document that describes the proposed Project, existing environmental setting at the Project site, and potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed Project. It is intended to inform the public and decision-makers of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and to document the lead agency’s compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This Initial Study concludes that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts, all of which would be avoided or reduced to a level that would be less than significant with recommended mitigation measures. The P roject applicant has accepted all the recommended mitigation measures. As a result, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has issued a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. The time available for public comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is shown on the Notice of Intent.

Environmental Review Process

This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being re circulated for public and agency review as required by CEQA. The City will circulate the IS/MND to the Fresno County Clerk’s Office and State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for distribution and a 30-day review period.

Furthermore, the full IS/MND is on file at Fresno City Hall, 4 th Floor, Room 4019, 2600
Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

3 CITY OF FRESNO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THREE PALMS MOBILE HOME PARK WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND

DISPOSAL PROJECT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Fresno (City) plans to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project (Project).

Pursuant to CEQA §15073.5 (b)(2), this ISMND is recirculating due to substantial revision.

The Project is located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard on Fresno County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 442-122-26, approximately 9.8 acres in size, in the City of Fresno, California, approximately 160 miles south of Sacramento and 100 miles north of Bakersfield. The proposed Project is located at the existing Three Palms Mobile Home Park, north of West McKinley Avenue, northwest of a business park access road, south of State Highway 99/Golden State Boulevard Access Road, west of State Highway 99 and east of North Golden State Boulevard. The Project seeks to replace the Park’s aging septic systems and connect to the City of Fresno sewer system, providing access to a sustainable, long- term collection, treatment, and disposal system that will effectively manage the site’s domestic wastewater.

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, describing the degree of potential environmental impacts of the Project. The City has assessed the potential environmental impacts of this Project and has determined that they will be less than significant. The City of Fresno is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for any project in the City of Fresno. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and available for public review at Fresno Ci ty Hall, 4
th Floor, Room 4019, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721. The public review period during which the City will receive comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will begin on April 18, 2025, and end on May 18, 2025.

This public notice provides staff’s finding in the manner prescribed by § 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines and by § 21092 of the PRC Code (CEQA provisions). Additional information on the proposed Project, including copies of the proposed environmental finding, may be obtained from the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, 1626 E Street, Fresno, CA 93706, or by contacting Debbie Khounsavath at (559) 621-1624 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Para información en español, comuníquense con Jaime Sandoval (al número de teléfono 559- 621-8613). ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the above proposed environmental findings. Comments must be in writing and must state (1) the commenter’s name and address; (2) the commenter’s interest in or relationship to the Project; (3) the environmental determination being commented upon; and (4) the specific reason(s) why the proposed environmental determination should or should not be made. Any comments may be submitted at any 4 time between the publication date of this notice and on or before May 18, 2025 by 5:00 p.m. Your comments are welcomed and will be considered in the final decision.

5 APPENDIX G/INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Environmental Checklist Form for:

Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project

1. Project title:

Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Fresno
1626 E Street
Fresno, California 93706

3. Contact person and phone number:

Debbie Khounsavath, Planner
City of Fresno—Department of Public Utilities
1626 E Street, Fresno, California 93706
Phone Number: 559-621-1624
[email protected]

4. Project location:

Address:1941 North Golden State Blvd, Fresno, CA 93705. T he proposed Project is located in the City of Fresno, approximately 160 miles south of Sacramento and 100 miles north of Bakersfield. The proposed Project is located at the existing Three Palms Mobile Home Park, north of W est McKinley Ave nue,
northwest of a business park
access road, south of State Hwy 99/G olden State Boulevard Access Road, west of State Highway 99 and east of North Golden State Boulevard. Refer to Figure 1 (Project Location and Vicinity Map) and Figure 2 (Site Plan) for specific information on the Project location and activities.
(APN: 442-122-26)

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Armando Murrieta
Self-Help Enterprises
8445 W Elowin Court
P.O. Box 6520
Visalia, CA 93290

6. General & Community plan land use designation:

Medium High Density

7. Zoning:

RM-MH: Residential – Mobile Home Park, see Figure 3 City of Fresno Zoning Map 6 8.

Description of project:

This IS/MND was filed by the Lead Agency . The applicant proposes to upgrade the wastewater collection and disposal system to address wastewater concerns at the Three Palms Mobile Home Park (Park) in Fresno, California. The proposed Project seeks to replace the Park’s aging individual septic systems and connect to the City of Fresno sewer line, provid ing a sustainable, long- term collection, treatment, and disposal system that will effectively manage the site’s domestic wastewater.

Local Setting

The climate of the area is best described as Mediterranean, characterized by hot dry summers and cool winters. Precipitation in the area averages approximately 11 inches per year. However, rainfall can significantly vary year to year. The City of Fresno relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin, surface water from Central Valley Project, Kings River water, and recycled water.

Project Location

The proposed Project is located within the City of Fresno. The parcels immediately surrounding the proposed Project are designated by the County’s General Plan as Employment – Business Park and Residential – Medium High Density. Each of the surrounding parcels are between approximately 1 acre and approximately 6 acres in size. The proposed Project site is directly adjacent to State Route 99 to the north, west, and east.

The proposed Project site is located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard , Fresno, California. The 9.8-acre site is identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 442- 122-

26. Primary site access is provided via N Golden State B oulevard. The site is located on the Fresno North 7.5-minute U.S.G.S. quadrangle map, Township 13 South, Range 20 East, Section 30, Mount Diablo Base Meridian (MDBM). The location of the proposed Project is shown in Figure 1.

Existing Conditions

The proposed Project site has been historically used for agricultural and residential purposes. The mobile home park is made up of 99 residential units with a population of approximately 347 residents. As noted previously, the proposed Project site falls under the RMHT: Mobile Home Park (Residential – Medium High Density) General Plan designation, with a Residential – Mobile Home Park zoning designation. The proposed Project site is currently served by multiple self -contained septic systems.

Power to the property is supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

2.2 Proposed Uses

Project Background and Purpose

Wastewater collection and treatment on the site is provided by multiple individual 7 collection and septic treatment and subsurface disposal systems. Disposal infiltration pits have been added to the system in the past to compensate for the apparent failed leach fields. The proposed Project site is unable to maintain its failing septic sys tems, which could result in health hazards such as groundwater contamination. The current wastewater collection system has 105 total sewer service connections, which includes 57 mobile homes, 39 RV’s, 3 apartment units, a laundry room, a maintenance room, a pool, and 3 non-functional connections.

Project Description

The proposed Project includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 20 existing septic systems, installation of 1 lift station, installation of approximately 3,000 linear feet of 6-
inch diameter gravity sewer main, installation of 102 sewer service lateral connections to the new internal 6- inch main, and installation of approximately 15 on-site manholes as shown in Figure 2. The minimum depth of the pipe would be 3- feet, and the trench would be cut through either paved or previously disturbed areas.

The connection to the City’s sewer collection system would be made by either trenching or boring across N Golden State Boulevard
. This would be contingent upon criterion
such as safety and economic viability. This connection would consist of removing and reconstructing the existing City manhole adjacent to the north- bound travel lane of
Golden State Boulevard.

Construction Methods and Schedule

All construction and staging would be executed within previously disturbed areas.

Construction of the proposed Project would be scheduled during normal business hours Monday through Friday to reduce potential noise complaints.

Operations and Maintenance

The connections made within the mobile home park property would be considered private; therefore, the applicant would be responsible for all maintenance. The City would be responsible for maintaining the infrastructure between the mobile home park property line and the City’s manhole.

The proposed Project was designed to maximize potential for pollution prevention, efficient water recapture, water reuse, and conservation of energy. The proposed Project requires no mechanical devices or biological processes and would be completely underground, with the exception of an above- ground electrical lift station control panel. The proposed Project has been designed for a useful life of over 50 years.

8 9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
North Employment, Light
Industrial IL (Light Industrial) Industrial
East Residential,
Medium Density
RS-5 (Residential, Single
Family, Medium Density) Residential
South Business Park BP (Business Park) Business
West
Business Park &
Mixed Use,
Neighborhood
BP (Business Park) &
NMX (Neighborhood Mixed
Use)
Business &
Mixed Use

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• State Water Resources Control Board
• City of Fresno
• County of Fresno
• California Department of Housing and Community Development

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or,
the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)). According to the most recent census data, California is home to 109 currently recognized Indian tribes. Tribes in California currently have nearly 100 separate reservations or Rancherias. Fresno County has a number of Rancherias such as Table Mountain Rancheria, Millerton Rancheria, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheri a, and 9 Squaw Valley Rancheria. These Rancherias are not located within the city limits.

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

Currently, the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe and the Dumna Wo Wah Tribe have requested to be notified pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52).

A certified letter was
mailed to the above- mentioned tribes as well as those identified by the NAHC o n January 22, 2025. The 30 -day comment period ended on February 22, 2025. Tribal consultation was requested and coordinated with the tribe.

10 Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity Map

11 Figure 2 – Project Site Plan

12 Figure 3 - City of Fresno Official Zoning Map

13 Project Alternatives

Three complete alternatives were evaluated to determine the optimum strategy for providing the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community with sewer services. These alternatives are described below:

Alternative 1- “No Action”
This alternative assumes the proposed Project site would continue to rely on septic systems for wastewater treatment. No improvements to existing equipment, facilities, or the treatment process are considered.

Alternative 2- “New Wastewater Treatment Facility Project” This alternative consists of constructing a collection system, package Wastewater Treatment Facility, and irrigation/infiltration system in the proposed Project site.

Alternative 3- “Project Site On-Site Wastewater Collection" This alternative consists of connecting the proposed Project site on- site wastewater collection system to the City’s existing sewer collection system.

The three alternatives were carefully evaluated based on criterion that weigh different factors such as infrastructure development and improvement, environmental considerations, and long-term public health and safety within the community. Alternative 3 was selected based on these factors.
14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire
☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

4/04/2025
Debbie Khounsavath, Planner II Date 15 This chapter provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed wastewater collection and disposal improvements for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project, as well as the CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance. A discussion of cumulative impacts is included at the end of this chapter.

The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the State CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Fresno in its environmental review process. This checklist has been updated with the revisions of the January 1, 2024 State CEQA Guidelines. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.

This Initial Study identifies several potentially significant environmental impacts related to the proposed Project. All potential impacts are mitigated by implementation of existing provisions of law and standards of practice related to environmental protection.

Such provisions are considered in the environmental impact analysis, and the degree to which they would reduce potential environmental impacts are discussed. Additional mitigation measures are specifically identified when necessary to avoid potential environmental impacts or to reduce them to a level that is less than significant.

1. For purposes of this Initial S tudy, the following answers have the corresponding meanings:

a. “No Impact” means the specific impact category does not apply to the project, or that the record sufficiently demonstrates that project specific factors or general standards applicable to the project will result in no impact for the threshold under consideration.

b. “Less Than Significant Impact” means there is an impact related to the threshold under consideration, but that impact is less than significant.

c. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation” means there is a potentially significant impact related to the threshold under consideration, however, with the mitigation incorporated into the project, the impact is less than significant.

d. “Potentially Significant Impact” means there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant related to the threshold under consideration.

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

16 3. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

4. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significa nt Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.

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

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

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursu ant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which, if any, effects from the above checklist were within the scope of an applicable program-level EIR , and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from a previously adopted CEQA document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

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

I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X

b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock out -
croppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X

c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X

d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The proposed Project site is located in an urban environment adjacent to State Route 99.

Surrounding land uses are comprised of business parks, mixed use, vacant land, light industrial and both single and multi-family housing developments. Topography of the area is generally flat. The General Plan does not identify scenic vistas within proximity of, nor viewable from the Project site. Scenic resources identified in the General Plan include the Sierra Nevada mountains; however, the proposed Project is approximately 50 miles east of the Coastal Range and approximately 15 miles west of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Neither of these are typically visible from the vantage point of the proposed Project site as views are obstructed due to buildings and often haze or smog. The nearest state scenic highway is approximately 6.1 miles northeast of the Project. 18 Would the Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas in the proximity of the Project.

Construction of the Project components would not extend higher than existing buildings in the vicinity and thus would not obstruct existing public views of the Sierra Nevada.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, the nearest state scenic highway is approximately 6.1 miles northeast of the Project . There are no scenic resources, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, valuable vegetation, or state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Caltrans 2023). The immediate area is developed with commercial, residential, and quasi-public uses. Therefore, no public scenic vista will be obstructed, and no scenic resources will be damaged by the development of the proposed Project.

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area. The proposed Project site is currently zoned RM-MH: Mobile Home Park, which is similar to the parcels to the east of the proposed Project site and is within close proximity to existing business parks and State Route 99. The parcel is separated on 3 sides from surrounding parcels by State Route 99. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not substantially change the visual character of the area.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other 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?

No Impact. The Project proposes to abandon the current septic systems onsite and connect wastewater utilities to the City of Fresno Wastewater system through below ground pipes. Project construction will occur during daytime hours only. During operation, there would be no change to existing light sources.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings
19 In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Aesthetics were found to be less than significant.

References

California Department of Transportation. (2023). California Department of Transportation - State Scenic Highways. Accessed 2023.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecturre-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monito-ring Program
of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The Project site is approximately 9.8 acres of occupied mobile homes and related amenities. The property was historically used for agricultural and residential purposes.

The Project site has a City General Plan designation of RMHT: Mobile Home Park (Residential – Medium High Density), and a Zoning designation of Residential - Mobile Home Park. No active agricultural fields are in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.

The Project site is not designated Farmland of Local Importance in the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) 2018 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Agricultural and Forestry Resources based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion ar e provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Agricultural and Forestry Resources.

Based on a field review, information provided by the applicant, publicly available information, and observations made on the proposed Project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

Would the Project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed Project site is an approximately 9.8-acre parcel consisting of occupied mobile homes. The proposed Project site and all surrounding parcels in 22 the vicinity are all designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Important Farmland Finder Map (DOC 2023). The closest areas of designated “Prime Farmland”, “Farmland of Statewide Importance” and “Unique Farmland” are located approximately 4 miles to the southwest of the proposed Project site. Development of the proposed Project site would not be converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The proposed Project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract or surrounded by parcels under a Williamson Act contract, nor is it zoned for agricultural uses or surrounded by parcels zoned for agricultural uses.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The proposed Project would not involve the rezoning of any forest land or timber land.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The proposed Project would not involve the loss of any forest land or convert 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. The proposed Project site is currently zoned as RM -MH, thus, the proposed Project does not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor does the proposed Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use, or involve any other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Agricultural and Forestry Resources were determined to amount to less than significant impact.

23 References

California Department of Conservation (DOC). Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
24 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan ( e.g
., by having
potential emissions of regulated
criterion pollutants which exceed
the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control Districts
(SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds
for these pollutants)?
X

b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X

c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was 25 caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or ext reme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications.

An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas for ozone, CO, and NOx as “does not meet the primary stan dards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SOx, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same sub- categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State PM10, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 8- hour ozone a nd PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the USEPA re- designated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment status for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan. California’s ambient air monitoring network is one of the most extensive in the world, with more than 250 sites and 700 individual monitors measuring air pollutant levels across a diverse range of topography, meteorology, emissions, and air quality. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and Projections in the Project are best documented by measurements made by these monitoring sites.

The SJVAPCD quantitative significance thresholds shown in Table 1 were used to evaluate Project emissions impacts (SJVAPCD 2015).

26 Table 1 - SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance

Source: SJVAPCD 2015

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Air Quality based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Air Quality.

Would the Project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less than Significant Impact. The analysis in the Air Quality Resource section is based on CalEEMod modeling prepared based on the proposed Project. The model outputs are available in Appendix A.

Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards.

Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Construction-Related Emissions
Daily (lb/day)
Operational Emissions
Pollutant / Precursor
27 The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SJVAPCD. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the growth Projections in the Valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures.

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 Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) indicates that Projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable AQP.

Construction Emissions

Construction emissions associated with the proposed Project are shown in Table 2. As shown, the emissions are below the significance thresholds and, therefore, are less than significant on a Project basis.

Table 2 - Construction Emissions Summary

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015

During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by grading, paving, building, and other activities.

Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROGs), directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, construction, and Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr
ROG (VOC) 0.21 0.21 10 LTS
NOx 1.61 1.61 10 LTS
PM10 (exhaust) 0.06 0.06 15 LTS
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.06 0.06 15 LTS
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust) 0.10 0.10 BMPs LTS
CO 1.79 1.79 100 LTS
Criteria Pollutants Significance
28 paving activities. Construction- related effects on air quality from the proposed Project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulat e emissions.

Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would 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, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipm ent. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). Regulation VIII is a series of rules desi gned to reduce fugitive dust from construction sites, parking and staging areas, open areas, material storage areas, etc. No permits are required by Regulation VIII, but failure to comply can result in fines and penalties. The SJVAPCD provides a synopsis describing requirements and exemptions from Regulation VIII when commenting on proposed Projects. Measures generally required by Regulation VIII at all construction sites include the following:
• 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, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. • When materials are transported off -site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. • All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of out -door storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emission utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

With the implementation of Regulation VIII measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust -related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SOx, NOx, ROG, and some 29 soot particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Operational Emissions

Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the proposed Project. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations. The emissions output for Project operation at full buildout are summarized in Table 3. As shown, the operational emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for all criteria air pollutants.

Table 3 - Operational Emissions Summary

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug-in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources. The proposed Project would not involve the majority of these Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr
ROG (VOC) 0.009 0.009 10 LTS
NOx 0.000 0.000 10 LTS
PM10 (exhaust) 0.000 0.000 15 LTS
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.000 0.000 15 LTS
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust) 0.000 0.000 BMPs LTS
CO 0.001 0.001 100 LTS
Criteria Pollutants Significance
30 emission sources.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the Project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the Project would include emissi ons from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products. The proposed Project is not expected to require these emission sources.

As shown above in Table 2 and Table 3, the proposed Project’s construction and operational regional emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be considered in 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?

Less than Significant Impact. To result in a less than significant impact, emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD’s in its GAMAQI. The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction and operation are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5

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. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, significance is based on a significant impact level (SIL) that represents the amount that is considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard. The pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are NOx, SOx, and CO.

The SJVAPCD has provided guidance for screening localized impacts in the GAMAQI that establishes a screening threshold of 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant. If a Project exceeds 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then ambient air qual ity modeling would be necessary. If the Project does not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then it can be assumed that it would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard.

Local construction impacts would be short -term in nature lasting only during the duration of construction. As shown above, on- site construction emissions would be less than 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. To present a conservative estimate, on -site emissions for on- road construction vehicles were included in the localized analysis. Based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the construction emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation.

Local operational impacts could occur in areas with a single large source of 31 emissions such as a power plant or with multiple sources concentrated in a small area such as a distribution center. Since the proposed Project would be adding a relatively small amount of additional vehicle trips to and from the site compared to currently approved conditions, this analysis includes emissions from these vehicles as new sources of emissions from the proposed Project.

As shown in above, operational modeling of on- site emissions for the proposed Project indicates that the proposed Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutant. Therefore, based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the operational emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than Significant Impact. Emissions occurring at or near the proposed Project could have the potential to create a localized impact that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor to be a 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 sensitive receptor to the proposed Project is the business park adjacent to the south. The nearest school to the proposed Project site is Addams Elementary School, approximately 0.5- mile southwest of the site.

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 implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require additional analysis to determine if the preparation of an ambient air quality analysis is needed. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.

There is no localized emission standard for ROG.

As shown above, the proposed Project would not exceed the emission screening thresholds during Project construction.

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Less than Significant Impact. Two situations create a potential for odor impact.

The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. The proposed Project is of t he first classification since it involves a potential new odor source and would not create any new sensitive receptors. Although the proposed Project is adjacent to a sensitive receptor, the proposed Project is not expected to be a significant source of odors during construction or operation.

32 During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent, which would decrease the likelihood of the odors concentrating in a single area or lingering for any notable period of time. As such, these odors would likely not be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries.

The development of wastewater disposal infrastructure would not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, composting facilities, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed Project would not engage in any of these activities. Minor sources of odors that would be associated with typical vehicle use are known to have temporary and less concentrated odors.

Considering the low intensity of potential odor emissions, the proposed Project’s operational activities would not expose receptors to objectionable odor emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Air Quality were found to be less than significant.

Federal Cross-Cutting Topic – Clean Air Act

Under the federal CAA, federal actions conducted in air basins that are not in attainment with federal air pollutant standards (such as ozone and PM2.5 in the SJVAB) must demonstrate conformity with the California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP is defined in the federal CAA as meaning conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national standards and achieving an expeditious attainment of such standards. The SJVAPCD has published Regulation IX, Rule 9110 (referred as the General Conformity Rule) that indicates how most federal agencies can make such a determination.

The SJVAPCD specifies that a Project is conforming to the applicable attainment or maintenance plan if it:
• complies with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, • complies with all applicable control measures from the applicable plans, and • is consistent with the growth forecast in the applicable plans.

The SJVAPCD does not require a detailed quantification of construction emissions unless the Project's indirect source emissions are expected to increase pollutant emissions of ROG or NOx in excess of 10 tons per year. Because proposed Project construction would not exceed this threshold, the proposed Project would comply with the conformity criteria. 33 References

California Emissions Estimation Model® (CalEEMod). 2020. Version 2020.4.0. http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed 2023.

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District). 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/m2ecyxiw/1- cms-format-ceqa-air-quality-thresholds-of-significance-criteria-pollutants.pdf

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

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X

d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X

e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
35 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

A Biological Resource Assessment for the proposed Project was conducted by Soar Environmental. The full written report is contained in Appendix B.

The Biological Resource Assessment provides information about the biological resources within the proposed Project site. Prior to field activities, desktop surveys were completed through the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special -status species that could potentially be pres ent in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases and included species listing status, and proximal species observations in this report.

The Habitat Assessment survey emphasized the search for suitable habitat conditions of special-status species identified in the data record search. No suitable habitats were observed for any of the special status species identified in this report. All spec ial-status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the Project site, due to lack of suitable habitat, proximity, and time elapsed since historical occurrences.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Biological Resources based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist questions, discussions, and environmental significance conclusions are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Biological Resources.

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is comprised of 99 residences, paved and unpaved access roads to each residence, a mostly paved parking by each residence, a storage area, various residential amenities, a community swimming pool, and three grass areas for recreational use. The ground cover is mostly concrete with some eucalyptus, oak, and palm trees along the north side of the property, and small patches of ruderal weeds and grass around the perimeter of the property. The immediate vi cinity of the proposed Project site consists of land developed for commercial and residential purposes, and roadways. The highly disturbed nature of the area suggests that it is unlikely to support native wildlife.

Desktop surveys were conducted using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special- status species that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the proposed Project area.

Special-status species that have the potential to occur in the Project area based on documented occurrences in the vicinity include:
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) • Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitradoides exilis)
• Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
• Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus)
• California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)
• Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)
• Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)

All other special-status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project due to lack of suitable habitat, proximity, and time since historical occurrences. No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment survey of the proposed Project site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the special status species identified.

Former agricultural land is developed and considered to provide poor quality habitat for any special status species. No special status species are expected to 37 occur in this area.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. As discussed in the Biological Resources Assessment, no riparian habitat exists on or near the proposed Project site. There were no water features or signs of vernal pools within the proposed Project site that would provide adequate breeding habitat or refugia for riparian species.

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. As discussed previously, there are no water features, vernal pools, or other aquatic habitat located on the proposed Project site. There are no protected wetlands on the proposed Project site.

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. The proposed Project site does not contain any features that would function as wildlife movement corridors for resident or migratory wildlife species. There are no natural waterways or native vegetation on the proposed Project site, and the site is not used for movement of wildlife species or for a migratory wildlife corridor, nor is the site used for native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed Project site has been developed previously and is highly disturbed.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less than Significant Impact. The 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 inc luding providing buffers for natural areas, implementing habitat restoration where applicable, protection and enhancement of the San Joaquin River area, and other similar policies. The proposed Project would also comply with Article 3 of Section 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code relating to Trees within the public right of way.

Since the proposed Project is located in a highly disturbed area with minimal biological resources and does not include significant impacts to protected plant or animal species, the proposed Project does not conflict with any adopted policies pertaining to biological resources.

38 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 proposed Project site does not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other conservation plan. PG&E has an adopted HCP in Fresno County, Habitat Conservation Plan for Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Operation, Maintenance, and Minor New Construction Activities in the North Coast, Central Coast, Sacramento Valley, and Sierra Regions, California, 73 Fed. Reg. 71668 (Nov. 25, 2008), which would apply to the project if PG&E requires additional work to be done for this project.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Biological Resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

References

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants

Habitat Conservation Plan for Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Operation, Maintenance, and Minor New Construction Activities in the North Coast, Central Coast, Sacramento Valley, and Sierra Regions, California, 73 Fed. Reg. 71668 (Nov. 25, 2008). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/10/29/2010- 27338/habitat-conservation-plan-for-pacific-gas-and-electric-companys- operation-maintenance-and-minor-new

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
39 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X

b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting:

The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Project is available in Appendix C.

A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) located at California State University Bakersfield (CSUB) was conducted in order to determine: (i) if prehistoric or historical archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study areas; (ii) if the Project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this field study; and/or (iii) whether the region of the fi eld Project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Cal ifornia Points of Historic Interest. The results of the records search indicate two cultural resources recorded within

0.50-mile of the proposed Project area. The records searches indicate no recorded resources within the proposed Project area.

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was also completed. NAHC was provided with a brief description of the Project, a map showing its location, and requested that a search of the Sacred Lands File be conducted to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE.

The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources - ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and know n ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The 40 results were negative for the presence of tribal cultural resources. Additionally, the NAHC provided a current list of Native American Tribal contacts. The tribal representatives identified by NAHC were contacted in writing via United States Postal Service informing each Tribe of the Project and asking about known tribal cultural resources in the APE.

None of the tribes identified any potential resources on the proposed Project site.

Impact Analysis

The analysis in this section has been prepared in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which considers the potential impacts on prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources. This section describes the potential cultural res ources within the Project study area, and the applicable regulations that govern those resources.

CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a Project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Section 21084.1). If it can be demonstrated that a Project will cause damage to resources Eligible for or Listed in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) and other resources on local County or Local lists, or those determined by the lead agency to be significant. The lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of the resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

PRC Section 5024.1 requires an evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purpose of the register is to maintain listings of the state’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c) (1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR (Section 21084.1), a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5[a][3]).

41 The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Cultural Resources based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Cultural Resources.

Would the Project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated. A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria: (1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built-environment resources and archaeological sites.

The proposed Project site is not within a designated or proposed historic district, and there are no structures which exist on or within the immediate vicinity that are listed on or considered to be eligible for the National or Local Register of Historic Places. However, there is always a possibility of discovering a previously unidentified historical recorded within 0.50-mile of the proposed Project area.

Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure s CR-1 and CR-3 would reduce potential impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project site is not located within an archaeological resource site. Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the proposed Project area to date, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 require construction activities to stop if unknown resources are encountered until a qualified historical resources specialist can make recommendations to the City.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
42 Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated. There is no evidence that human remains exist on the proposed Project site or surrounding area. However, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be discovered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities. Mitigation Measure CR-2 would be implemented. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist.

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

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City ‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.

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

• If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under 43 Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City ‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐ term preservation to allow future scientific study.

• If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

CR-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendant s all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Findings

With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified, the Project would have a less than significant impact to Cultural Resources.

Federal Cross-Cutting Topic - National Historic Preservation Act

44 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended created the National Register of Historic Places and extended protection to historic places of State, local, and national significance. It established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Preservation Officers, and a preservation grants -in- aid program. Section 106 directs federal agencies to take into account effects of their actions ("undertakings") on properties in or eligible for the National Register. Section 106 of the act is implemented by regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800).

The U.S. Department of the Interior criteria and procedures for evaluating a property's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register are at 36 CFR Part 60. The 36 CFR Part 800 regulations, implementing Section 106, call for consultation with the SHPO, Native American tribes, and interested members of the public throughout the Section 106 compliance process. The four principal steps are to:
• Initiate the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800.3); • Identify historic properties, cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Part 800.4); • Assess the effects of the undertaking to historic properties within the area of potential effect (36 CFR Part 800.5); and • Resolve adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.6).

Adverse effects on historic properties often are resolved through preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), developed in consultation with Reclamation, the SHPO, Native American tribes, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and interested me mbers of the public. The MOA stipulates procedures that treat historic properties to mitigate adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.14[b]).

No historic properties have been identified within the area of potential effects. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on historic properties.

References

CEQA; January 1999 Revised Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5 (f). https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14- natural-resources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3-guidelines-for- implementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-5-preliminary- review-of-Projects-and-conduct-of-initial-study/section-150645-determining-the- significance-of-impacts-to-archaeological-and-historical-resources

Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum= 7050.5.&nodeTreePath=9.1.2&lawCode=HSC

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

VI. ENERGY – Would the project:

a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Operational energy consumption is composed of electricity and natural gas consumption to power the existing residences and associated appurtenances. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is the energy supplier to the proposed Project site. Site operations require diesel and gasoline fuel for maintenance visits, as necessary. There are no applicable State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency applicable to the proposed Project.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Energy based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each i ndividual environmental parameter related to Energy.

Would the Project:

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

46 Less than Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power construction vehicles and equipment on the proposed Project site, construction worker vehicles and delivery truck trips to and from the propos ed Project site. Construction would consist of site preparation, excavating, and installation of the proposed wastewater lines.

There are no unusual Project characteristics that would need construction equipment or practices that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Construction activity would be temporary, and its fuel consumption would cease upon construction completion. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities, the fuel and energy needed during Project construction would not be considered a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, it is expected that construction energy consumption associated with the proposed Project would be comparable to other similar construction Projects, and would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

During operation of the proposed Project, there would be little to no change in energy consumption relative to existing conditions. The property’s current energy supply would be primarily used to pump wastewater through the new system. Since the proposed Project would be located in a developed urban area and would be required to comply with the City’s energy efficiency policies, including General Plan Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecess ary 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 would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) and the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which includes provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Policy which is intended to finance energy and water improvements within a home or business through a land-secured loan, and funds are repaid through property assessments. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct state and local plans for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

Based upon the review of the information above, the implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact with respect to energy. 47 References

CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act. https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/

Department of General Services CCR Title 24, Part 11 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). 2023.
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1

Department of General Services CCR Title 24, Part 6, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy- efficiency-standards

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

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Directly or Indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

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

ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
48 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X

d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X

e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Fresno County is divided into two major physiographic and geologic provinces: the Sierra Nevada Range and the Central Valley. The Sierra Nevada physiographic province in the northeastern portion of the county is underlain by metamorphic and igneous rock. It consists mainly of homogenous types of granitic rocks, with several islands of older metamorphic rock. The central and western parts of the co unty are part of the Central Valley province, underlain by marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. It is basically a flat, alluvial plain, with soil consisting of material shed by the uplifting of the mountains, as well as San Joaquin River alluvium in the western valley.

The foothill area of the county is essentially a transition zone, containing old alluvial soils that have been dissected by the west-flowing rivers and streams which carry runoff from the Sierra Nevada. This gently rolling topography is broken in many areas by outcroppings of bedrock. Soils here are generally quite dense and compact.

Using the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey of the Project area, soils on the proposed Project site were determined 49 to be majority San Joaquin sandy loam (USDA, 2023)

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Geology and Soils based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Geology and Soils.

Would the Project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

Less than Significant Impact. Fresno has no known active earthquake faults and is not in any Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones. The immediate Fresno area has extremely low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenters lie to the east, west, and south. Known major faults are over 50 miles distant and include the San Andreas Fault, Coalinga area blind thrust fault(s), and the Long Valley, Owens Valley, and White Wolf/Tehachapi fault systems. The most serious threat to Fresno from a major earthquake in the Eastern Sierra would be flooding that could be caused by damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River. As such, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than Significant Impact. Although there are no known active earthquake faults in Fresno, the entire northern California region is subject to the potential for moderate to strong seismic shaking due to distant seismic sources. Seismic shaking can be generated on faults many miles f rom the proposed Project vicinity. Seismic shaking potential is considered minimal, and the hazard is not higher or lower at the proposed Project site than throughout the region. Standard design and construction practices meet ing current California Building Code (where applicable) would provide adequate protection for the structures and 50 related facilities proposed by the Project. In compliance with these standards, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located on soil classified by the USDA Web Soil Survey as “San Joaquin sandy loam” (USDA 2023). Parent material of the soil is Alluvium derived from granite. The soil is within the moderately well-drained drainage class and is estimated to be more than 80 inches above the existing water table.

There are no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the site. The existing topography is relatively flat with no apparent unique or significant landforms such as vernal pools. Development of the property requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno.

Although located in a seismically active region ( Northern California), the proposed Project site is not likely to be subject to seismic shaking of adequate strength or duration to generate secondary seismic effects. Likely seismic sources are too far from the proposed Project site to generate sufficient long - duration strong shaking. Construction standards that meet the current California Building Codes (as applicable) would provide adequate protection for buildings and related facilities proposed by the Pro ject. In compliance with these standards, the proposed Project will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

iv. Landslides?

No Impact. The proposed Project site and surrounding parcels are geologically flat with an elevation of approximately 280 feet above mean sea level. There are no documented landslide hazard areas identified within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site that would have an impact on the proposed Project.

As such, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation is Incorporated. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would include cut and fill grading and trenching. These activities would include ground disturbance which could potentially result in short-term soil erosion. However, if the proposed Project fo otprint is greater than one (1) acre, it would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges and would comply with those requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Preve ntion Plan (SWPPP) would be required to be prepared and implemented under these 51 requirements, which includes appropriate erosion- control and water -quality-control measures during site preparation, grading, construction, and post -construction.

Implementation of the SWPPP (GEO -1) for the proposed Project would minimize short-term erosion impacts. Long- term impacts of the proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion, as the soils would be covered by buildings and pavement.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

No Impact. Soil on the Project site is considered to be disturbed and is developed for urban purposes. Any previously undeveloped soil would be compacted as necessary to meet building requirements. As discussed previously, the proposed Project is not located on a site with known geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions. Soil on the proposed Project site is considered well-drained. All structures would be subject to all IBC and CBC earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Development of the property requires compliance with grading and drainage standards of the City of Fresno.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

No Impact. Expansive soils are those that undergo a change in volume when exposed to fluctuations in moisture, causing shrinking when dry and swelling when moist. Such a change in volume can distort structural elements and damage structures. Typically, soils with high clay contents are most susceptible to these processes. There are no documented expansive soils located on the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site consists of San Joaquin sandy loam that is moderately well drained (USDA WSS, 2023). Thus, the proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. The proposed Project must comply with all applicable building and development codes. State and local regulations require preparation for a site-specific soils study by a qualified, licensed engineering professional. Said soils study would comply with mandatory soils, geologic and related grading requirements. The proposed Project involves abandoning an existing septic tank system and would connect the property to the City of Fresno wastewater system.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation is Incorporated. Development in the City of Fresno could potentially impact unknown paleontological resources or unique 52 geological features. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure that a field survey and record search are conducted prior to construction on a previously undisturbed site, and that paleontological/ geological resources found during the field survey or during project construction would be handled and preserved by a qualified paleontologist. Adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure GEO -2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological and geological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the geology and soils related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated May 17, 2024.

GEO-1: If the total area of ground disturbance from installation of the cultivation operation is one (1) acre or more, the cultivator must enroll for coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construc tion General Permit, 2009-0009-DWQ).

GEO-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontologic al/ geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:

• If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence.

In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency.

Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources.

Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

• If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity 53 of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Geology and Soils were found to be less than significant after mitigation incorporated.

References

CGS Earthquake Hazard Zones, SHP Fault Traces.

Maphttps://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi s.conservation.ca.gov%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FCGS_Earthquake_Ha zard_Zones%2FSHP_Fault_Traces%2FMapServer&source=sd

CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/

NRCS Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.html USGS Quaternary Faults Map.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a168 4561a9b0aadf88412fcf

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

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation.

The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three- fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of longwave (thermal) radiation, and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb and emit this longwave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the longwave radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Other than water vapor, the primary GHGs contributing to global climate change include the following gases:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources.
• Nitrous oxide (N2O), a byproduct of fuel combustion and also associated with agricultural operations such as the fertilization of crops; • Methane (CH4), commonly created by off‐gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., livestock), wastewater treatment, and landfill operations; • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, although their production has been mostly prohibited by international treaty;
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are now widely used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration and cooling;
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions, which are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular Project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of GHG emissions from global industrialization over the 55 last 200 years. A typical Project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

California passed Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) in 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Senate Bill 97 in 2007, evaluating and addressing GHG under CEQA. On April 13, 2009, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, as required by Senate Bill 97 {Chapter 185, 2007} and they became effective March 18, 2010. As a result of these revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies are obligated to determine whether a Project’s GHG emissions significantly affect the environment and to impose feasible mitigation to eliminate or substantially lessen any such significant effects.

A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a Project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less-than-significant” or, in the case of cumulative impacts, less than cumulatively considerable (SMAQMD, 2018).

The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) also directed CARB to develop the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which outlines a set of actions to achieve the AB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to maintain such reductions thereafter. CARB approved the Scoping Plan in 2008 and first updated it in May 2014.

The second update in November 2017 also addresses the actions necessary to achieve the further GHG emissions reduction goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as described in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). In addition, the 2017 Scoping Plan looks forward to the reduction goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050, as described in Executive Order S-3-05 (EO-S-3-05).

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Based on a field review, information provided by the applicant, publicly available information, the CalEEMod and GHG Study for this Project, and observations made on the proposed Project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

Would the Project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less than Significant. The analysis in the Air Quality Resource section is based on the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the proposed Project. The model outputs and GHG Study are available in Appendix A.
56 Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human- induced global climate change include Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride.

GHGs – primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous (N2O) oxide, collectively reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) – are directly emitted from stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boilers, process heaters, and furnaces. GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e. power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility. Also, included in GHG quantification is electric power used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pip elines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills. (CARB 2017).

California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The 2019 standards improved upon the 2016 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. The 2019 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020 (CEC 2019).

Since the Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high efficiency lighting, high- efficiency heating, ventilating, and air -conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double- glazed windows, water conserving plumbing fixtures, etc.), they indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions.

Using CalEEMod, direct on- site and off -site GHG emissions were estimated for construction and operation, and indirect off -site GHG emissions were estimated to account for electric power used by the proposed project, water conveyance, and solid waste disposal.

The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions; however, the air district recommends the quantification and disclosure of construction generated GHG emissions. The SJVAPCD project -level operational threshold of significance for GHG emissions is the project generation of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year during operations (bright-line numeric threshold); or the project generation of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (employees + residents) per year during operations (efficiency -based threshold); or compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. However, it is noted that this threshold is based, in part, on the GHG reducing target established for the year 2020 under AB 32, but the Projec t would be implemented after the year 2020. Statewide goals for 57 GHG reductions in the years beyond 2020 were codified into state law with the passage of SB 32, which as described previously mandates that California achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. This equates to 40 percent below the statewide GHG reduction target for the year 2020.

Therefore, Project GHG emissions are quantified and compared to the thresholds issued by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which is an association of the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California, including the SJVAPCD. CAPCOA recommends a significance threshold of 900 metric tons annually. This threshold is based on a capture rate of 90 percent of land use development projects, which in turn translates into a 90 percent capture rate of all GHG emissions. The 900 metric ton threshold, the lowest promulgated in any region in the state, is considered by CAPCOA to be low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future projects that will be constructed to accommodate future (year 2050) statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.

Tables 4 and 5 show unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions. To show compliance with SJVAPCD use of BPS to show significance, the project would implement applicable and feasible reduction measures.

Table 4 - Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0

Table 5 - Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0

The project’s emissions would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants and Unmitigated Mitigated T hreshold
MT/yr MT/yr MT/yr
CO2 313.14 313.14 N/A N/A
CH4 0.05 0.05 N/A N/A
N20 0.01 0.01 N/A N/A
CO2e 316.30 316.30 1,100 LTS
Greenhouse Gases Significance

58 would not result in inconsistency with the air quality plan for this criterion. The project’s proposed land use designation would provide uses and development patterns consistent with the land use policies of the City of Fresno General Plan. The project complies with all applicable control measures from the air quality plan therefore, the project is consistent with the air quality plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would not require a change the General Plan land use designation or the current zoning and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less than Significant Impact. The following discussion evaluates the proposed Project according to the goals of AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197.

AB 32 is aimed at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The AB 32 Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which includes direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non- monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market - based mechanisms such as a cap- and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B -30-15 and codified by SB

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

As identified above, the AB 32 Scoping Plan contains GHG reduction measures that work towards reducing GHG emissions, consistent with the targets set by AB 32, EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 and AB 197. The measures applicable to the proposed Project inc lude energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures.

Energy-efficient measures in this project are presented in three alternatives:
59 • Alternative 1 - "Status Quo": This option includes no energy -saving measures.

Currently, the majority energy consumption is driven by the pumping and hauling requirements for maintaining the cess pits.

• Alternative 2 - On-Site Wastewater Treatment Plant: This alternative involves significant electrical demand and consumables that require delivery. Additionally, pumping and hauling procedures will be needed to manage the sludge buildup during the treatment process.

Alternative 3 - Consolidation with the City of Fresno: This option also incurs lift station and pumping requirements but eliminates the substantial on- site energy demands associated with wastewater treatment. By consolidating with the City of Fresno, the energy requirements for treatment are transferred to Fresno’s larger, more efficient treatment facility, resulting in a more energy -efficient overall process.

As such, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Greenhouse Gas Emissions were found to be less than significant.

References

California Emissions Estimation Model® (CalEEMod). 2020. Version 2020.4.0. Website (http://www.caleemod.com/). Accessed August 26, 2021.

CARB Scoping Plan 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/board/res/2017/res17-46.pdf

California Assembly Bill 32.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060AB3 2 Executive Order S-3-05. https://www.library.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/5129- 5130.pdf

CARB California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_tren ds_00-19.pdf
60 CARB An Inventory of Ecosystem Carbon in California’s Natural & Working Lands. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/nwl_inventory.pdf

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2018. CEQA Guide: Chapter 6 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/123569-
2/attachment/UN826Gl4XfcLEII3cCVMNFc2yG3tQfW91ADSzXC0KTAgkUoNOg 1InPiJRTKMrMTqG6jFNAkCtw7qeRRo0

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District). 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants.

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

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL – Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X

b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X

d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in
a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X

f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
62 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

g) Expose people or structures ,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Hazards are physical safety factors that can cause injury or death, and while by themselves in isolation may not pose a significant safety hazard to the public, when combined with development of Projects can exacerbate hazardous conditions.

Hazardous materials are typically chemicals or processes that are used or generated by a Project that could pose harm to people, working at the site or on adjacent areas. Many of these chemicals can cause hazardous conditions to occur should they be improperly disposed of or accidentally spilled as part of Project development or operations.

Hazardous materials are also those listed as hazardous pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the administering agency , and the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for Fresno County maintains responsibility for regulating hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, underground storage tank facilities, above ground storage tanks, and stationary sources handling regulated substances. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) is required for businesses that handle, use, generate, or store hazardous materials. The primary purpose of this plan is to provide readily available information regarding the location, type and health risks of hazardous materials to emergency response personnel, authorized government officials, and the public. Large cases of hazardous mater ials contamination or violations are referred to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the DTSC.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up- to-date lists on their websites. A search of the DTSC and SWRCB lists identified two open cases of hazardous waste violations within 0.5-mile of the Project site. These records include a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), and potential contamination from 1,2,3- TRICHLOROPROPANE (TCP), respectively. While these sites are within 0.5-mile of the proposed project site, they are not considered to be a threat to the safety of those involved with the proposed project due to distance and barriers between the sites.

The EPA maintains the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) program.

The ECHO website provides environmental regulatory compliance and enforcement 63 information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. The ECHO website includes environmental permit, inspection, violation, enforcement action, and penalty information about EPA-regulated facilities. Facilities included on the site are Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary sources; Clean Water Act (CWA) facilities with direct discharge permits, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; generators and handlers of hazardous waste, regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recov ery Act (RCRA); and public drinking water systems, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). ECHO also includes information about EPA cases under other environmental statutes. When available, information is provided on surrounding demographics, and ECHO includes other EPA environmental data sets to provide additional context for analyses, such as Toxics Release Inventory data.

Lists of hazardous materials are maintained by federal and State agencies and are available for public review. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maintains a database of hazardous materials as well as radiological materials as part of its RCRAInfo database (USEPA, 2021). The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a list of hazardous substances and contaminated sites as part of its Envirostor database (DTSC, 2021), as well as other hazardous and waste sites being overseen by the various State Water Resources Control Board which are inventoried in their Geotracker database (SWRCB, 2021). These databases are available to the public for review.

The proposed Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project site is located approximately 4 miles northwest of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are pr ovided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the Project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. 64 However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable safety standards and regulations, including General Plan Policies NS -4-a, NS -4-e, and NS -4-f. No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the connection of a residential property to the City of Fresno wastewater system. As discussed previously, the use of hazardous materials would be primarily confined to the Project construction period. Additionally, the General Plan includes Objective NS ‐4 and Policies NS -4-a, NS‐4‐c, NS -4-e, NS -4-f and NS ‐4‐g, which require site and project -specific compliance with local, State and federal standards and procedures to avoid the release or upset of hazardous materials. Therefore, compliance with federal and state regulations and applicable General Plan policies would ensure that the project would not result in significant hazards to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less than Significant Impact. One school exists within the vicinity of the proposed Project. Addams Elementary School which is located approximately 0.5- mile southwest of the proposed Project site. While a school exists in proximity to the proposed Project, Project activities do not require the handling or emitting of substantial quantities of hazardous materials or waste and therefore would not endanger the surrounding area.

No Impact. According to the DTSC EnviroStor database, the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, no hazards to the public or environment are anticipated.

65 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the proposed Project site is the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, which is located approximately 4 miles to the southeast. The proposed Project site is outside of the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Influence Area.

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The City's full‐time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up ‐to‐date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) serves as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOC. The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways that would block the circulation of emergency response services or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the EOC.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires because there are no wildlands in the vicinity of the proposed Project, thus precluding the possibility of wildfires.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Hazards and Hazardous materials were found to be less than significant.

References

California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE) - FHSZ Viewer https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

66 California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2017 - Cannabis Pesticides that are Legal to Use. 2017.
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/county/cacltrs/penfltrs/penf2015/2015atch/attach15

02.pdf

California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) 2024 - Envirostor Database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed May 13, 2024)

California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese) Database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORT ESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDO US+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29 (accessed May 15, 2024)

City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan-Noise and Safety Element, Pages. 9-33, 9-

34. Accessed May 10, 2024. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/GP/9NoiseandSafety.pd
f

Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) – Facility Search https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search/results

EPA UST Finder. Accessed May 13, 2024
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b03763d3f27544 61adf86f121345d7bc

Government Code Section 65962.5.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GO V&sectionNum=65962.5

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2024 - Geotracker Database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed May 14, 2024)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2021 - RCRA Database https://enviro.epa.gov/facts/rcrainfo/search.html

67 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X

b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X

c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

i) Result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
X

ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site:

iii) create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X

iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
68 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The Project is located in Fresno County, in the Central San Joaquin Valley, part of the Great Valley of California. Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the humidity is generally low. Winter t emperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. The Central Valley receives an average of approximately 11 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and March.

The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the principal rivers that influence the hydrology in the Fresno area. The western slopes of the Sierra Nevada drain to the west via the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. The Kings River is connected to the San Joaquin River by the James Bypass, a manmade canal. Floodwater from the Kings River is diverted to the San Joaquin River. Three dams control flows on the two rivers. The Friant and Mendota Dams are located on the San Joaquin River. These two dams provide some flood control; however, these two dams were not designed for the purpose of flood control.

The Pine Flat Dam was built for the purpose of flood control. In addition to the dams on the two rivers, there are reservoirs and detention basins that have been constructed to prevent flooding. These facilities include the Redbank Dam and the Redbank -Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. The Project area includes two dams (Big Dry Creek Dam and Fancher Creek Dam), three detention basins (Redbank Creek, Pup Cr eek, and Alluvial Drain Detention Basins), and canals to convey discharges in and around the City of Fresno. These facilities were designed to protect developed areas from a 200- year storm event (Fresno County 2000).

On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three- bill legislative package, composed of AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.

Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustaina bility plans. For critically over drafted basins, that will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. The California 69 Department of Water Resources (DWR) prioritizes groundwater basins in accordance with the provisions of California Water Code Section 10933(b).

The Project is located in the City of Fresno in Fresno County. The City of Fresno is part of Kings Subbasin, when the SGMA mandated the formation of the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), the City of Fresno joined the North Kings GSA (NKGSA).

The North Kings GSA has been designated “Medium & High” priority by the California Department of Water Resources (SGMA Basin Prioritization).

Flood zones are geographic areas that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Each flood zone reflects the anticipated type of flooding in the area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the portions of the proposed Project site proposed for development are located outside of a regulated flood hazard zone (FEMA FIRM, 2020). The proposed Project site is shown as being in Zone X. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500‐ year flood and protected by levee from 100‐ year flood.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Hydrology and Water Quality based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but al so provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the Project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and loading could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion that could adversely affect soils and reduce the r evegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Three general sources of potential short -term construction -related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or 70 mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

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

In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, the Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities ( GEO-1). The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

Operation of the proposed Project could potentially result in surface water pollution associated with chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and waste that may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via runoff during periods of heavy precipitation into these water bodies.

Implementation of the Stormwater Management Post -Construction Guidelines would reduce the potential for the discharge of pollutants during Project operations and impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. The majority of the proposed Project site would be impervious surface; and therefore, it is not expected that stormwater would infiltrate during Project operations. Because stormwater would be collected and diverted to the storm drain system, there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. Therefore, Project operations would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

71 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes a slight increase of impervious surfaces to facilitate the wastewater removal operation. Water service would be provided to the proposed Project by the City of Fresno. Based on the assumptions in the City’s Urban Water Managem ent Plan (UWMP), the proposed Project would not negatively impact water supplies or otherwise deplete groundwater supplies. Moreover, the proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere with groundwater recharge efforts being implemented by the City. The City’s UWMP contains a detailed evaluation of existing sources of water supply, anticipated future water demand, extensive conservation measures, and the development of new water supplies (recycled water, increased recharge, surface water treatment, etc.).

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less than Significant Impact. During construction, excavated soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed previously, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the Project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance with the requirements in the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, and with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

The proposed Project could slightly increase the amount of impervious surface, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, and which can more effectively transport sediments to receiving waters. The Project applicant would be required to establish and maintain existing drainage patterns. Therefore, the proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in an impact related to substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce or eliminate the proposed Project’s potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site.

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amoun t of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less than Significant Impact. During construction, soil would be disturbed and compacted, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can 72 increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed previously, the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs would be required to control and direct surface runoff onsite. With adherence to the Construction General Permit, construction impacts related to altering the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite would be less than significant.

While the proposed Project could slightly increase the impervious surface area, the proposed Project would maintain the overall on- site drainage patterns and continue to direct surface water to catch basins that flow into the existing storm drains. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant would be required to provide a stormwater improvement plan to the City to ensure that the stormwater system would be capable of handling a 25- year storm and that the drainage facilities conform to City requirements. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay for all necessary improvement costs if the City determines that the City’s storm drain system or storm drain pumping capacity requires expansion or modification as a result of the Project. Ther efore, the proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be considered less than significant.

As discussed above, the Project developer is required to prepare drainage and grading plans as part of the approval process.

iii. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project could result in a slight increase in impervious surfaces. However, compliance with pre- existing regulatory requirements, including implementation of a SWPPP, would reduce or eliminate the potential for Project construction to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, construction would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above, operation of the proposed Project would result in a minimal increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially increase runoff from the site. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce or eliminate the potential for Project operations to cause substantial additional polluted runoff or runoff in excess of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, Project operations would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff to be discharged to the storm drain system and impacts would be less than significant.

73 The proposed Project would connect to the City of Fresno’s existing storm-drain system and pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance.

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed Project developer is required to prepare drainage and grading plans and will connect to the City of Fresno’s existing storm-drain system. Both of these measures would ensure that the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts regarding impeding or redirecting flood flows.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located outside of any Special Flood Hazard Areas, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map 06019C1565H, effective 2/18/2009. There are no bodies of water near the site that could create a potential risk of hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The proposed Project would not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. As mentioned above, all new development within the City of Fre sno Planning Area must conform to standards and plans detailed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. By conforming to all standards and policies as outlined, any impacts would be less than significant.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Less than Significant Impact. The City is located within the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The planning documents regarding water resources for the City include the City of Fresno UWMP and the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resourc es Management Plan. As noted above, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to FMFCD drainage control requirements. As a result, the proposed Project would not include any other waste discharges that could conflict with the Basin Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The proposed Project would be in compliance with all water quality control plans and other hydrological requirements set forth by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Hydrology and Water Quality were found to be less than significant.
74 Federal Cross-Cutting Topic - Flood Plain Management- Executive Order Number 11988

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates flood hazard and frequency for cities and counties on its Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The proposed Project area is not within a designated 100- year floodplain, on a floodplain map, or otherwise designated by FEMA.

Federal Cross-Cutting Topic - Rivers and Harbors Act

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S., without Congressional approval.

Under Section 10 of the Act, the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures is prohibited without Congressional approval, and excavation or fill within navigable waters requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers. The USACE is authorized to issue permits for the discharge of refuse matter into or affecting navigable waters under Section 13 of the act.

The proposed Project would not be constructed in a location that would affect a navigable waterway, requiring permit or approval by USACE.

Federal Cross- Cutting Topic - Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required USEPA to establish criteria through which an aquifer may be declared a critical aquifer protection area. Since 1977, it has been used by communities to help prevent contamination of groundwater from federally fun ded Projects. These aquifers are defined as "sole source aquifers." USEPA's Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Program was established under Section 1424(e) of the SDWA. These are, essentially, aquifers that are the only drinking water supply for the population of a region.

SSA designation protects an area's groundwater resources by requiring USEPA to review all proposed Projects within the designated area that will receive federal financial assistance. The SSA Program states that if USEPA determines an area to have an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area, that if contaminated would create a significant hazard to public health, a notice of that determination needs to be published in the Federal Register. After publication of any such notice, no commitment for federal financial aid may be applied for any Project that the Administrator determines may contaminate the aquifer through a recharge zone, so as to create a significant hazard to public health (USEPA 2019).

The Project is not located on a Sole Source Aquifer.

References

California Senate Bill 94.
https://static.cdfa.ca.gov/MCCP/document/California%20Senate%20Bill%2094.p df
75 California DWR - 1-062 Wilson Point Area Basin Boundary Description. https://data.ca.gov/dataset/groundwater-basin-boundary-descriptions-north- coast-region-1-xxx-basins

FEMA FIRM 2020 – National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home

Fresno, County of. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report.

SGMA Basin Prioritization. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Basin-Prioritization
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/

State Water Resources Control Board – Order WQ 2019-0001-DWQ. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/ 2019/wqo2019_0001_dwq.pdf

Urban Water Management Plans – Department of Water Resources Urban Water Management Plans (ca.gov)

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

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established
community?
X

b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The Project site is located in the southeast portion of the City of Fresno along State Route

99. The proposed Project site is currently an active mobile home park. In general, the proposed Project site is surrounded by farmland and open space outside of urban areas directly adjacent to the site.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Land Use and Planning based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided bel ow under each individual environmental parameter related to Land Use and Planning.

Would the Project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed Project does not have the potential to, nor does it propose to physically divide an established community. The proposed Project site is within the 77 Fresno City limits and within an urbanized area of the City of Fresno that includes the infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site falls within the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan which shows the planned land use for the proposed Project site as Residential Mobile Home Park which is consistent with the current land use. The proposed Project would comply with the plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, there are no potential impacts associated with Land Use and Planning as the proposed Project is compatible with the current land use designations.

References

City of Fresno. 2016. Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan. https://www.fresno.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/161020DNCPFinallowres1.pdf

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

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X

b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

There are no known current or historic mineral resource extraction or recovery operations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Mineral Resources based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Mineral Resources.

Based on a field review l, information provided by the applicant, publicly available information, and observations made on the proposed Project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

Would the Project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The Project site is located within an urban area on a previously developed site. There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the Project site.

The principal area for mineral resources in the City is along the San Joaquin River Corridor. The City’s Resource Conservation and Resilience Element of the City’s General Plan includes several policies to conserve aggregate mineral resources. 79 However, the Project is located approximately 5 miles from the San Joaquin River Corridor. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. A mineral resource is land on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist. The designation is applied to sites determined by the California Geological Survey as being a resource of regional significance and is intended t o help maintain any quarrying operations and protect them from encroachment of incompatible uses. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, nor would it result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The proposed Project site is not located in an area designated as an important mineral resource recovery site by a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan or by the State of California.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, it was determined that impacts to Mineral Resources would be less than significant.

References

California Geological Survey (CGS) Information Warehouse - Mineral Land Classifications. Accessed November 2023.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html

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

XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X

b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X

c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The Project is located in the city of Fresno in a mostly urban setting. SR 99 is the nearest highway, which is adjacent to the Project site to the east, north, and west. The southern side of the proposed Project site borders along a business park area. The Fresno Chandler Executive Airport is located approximately 4 miles southeast of the proposed Project site.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Noise based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and 81 environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Noise.

Would the Project:

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project construction related activities would involve temporary noise sources. Typical construction related equipment includes graders, trenchers, small tractors, and excavators. During Project construction, noise from construction related act ivities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers).

The distinction between short -term construction noise impacts and long- term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short -term noise from construction is inevitable and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short -term noise at levels that they would not accept as permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and could preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time in urban environments. Most residents of urban areas recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion.

Construction activities would adhere to Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-109, which limits work hours to “ between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM on any day except Sunday.”

Due to the nature of the proposed Project, it is unlikely to result in any increase in operational noise levels. The proposed Project would not introduce a new significant source of noise that is not already occurring in the area.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than Significant Impact. The dominant sources of man‐ made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, diesel locomotives, and rail ‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed Project. Other sources of ground borne vibration include demolition and pavement breaking. While these activities may occur, they would be limite d and temporary in nature. The proposed Project would not completely demolish any existing structures.

Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during 82 some paving activities. In general, ground borne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. While some residences are somewhat adjacent to the proposed Project, these levels of vibration would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage.

After full Project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities would result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Additional mitigation is not required. There are no aspects of daily operations that would create ground borne vibration.

c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The nearest airport to the proposed Project site is the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 5 miles south of the site. The Fresno International Airport is located approximately 8 miles east of the site. Each of these airports has an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that guides approximate compatible land uses. The City of Fresno General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP. Each ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on Projected airport and aircraft operations. The Project site is not located in an ALUCP.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Noise were found to be less than significant.

References

California CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Noise Technical Report https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250424-
3/attachment/trviFRA606NpQEG_j573rubW5jPqm53FGRO2fci6k8GBpoqjJ52UT E9suWmBFVvDaC0IihEAFxodHfv90

City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-109. 2016.
https://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/ordinances/Fresno,%20California.pdf

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

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X

b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The Project is located in a mobile home park within the city of Fresno in a mostly urban setting. The proposed Project site is surrounded by SR 99, business parks, and residential housing developments.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Population and Housing based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that no impacts would occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Population and Housing.

Would the Project:

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would construct a new wastewater removal system in an existing mobile home park. The proposed Project 84 does not propose new homes or businesses, nor the extension of roads or other related infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed Project does not have the potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, as the proposed Project site currently consists of an active mobile home park that would be preserved.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

Based on the information reviewed for the Population and Housing resource category, the proposed Project will have no impact.

Federal Cross-Cutting Topic - Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, was issued in 1994. The EO directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low -income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.

USEPA has developed a mapping and screening tool called EJSCREEN that uses nationally consistent data to identify minority or low -income communities. According to EJSCREEN, the proposed Project site is not in an environmental justice community18. In addition, the purpose of the Project would be to supply clean, reliable water to residents of the Rolling Hills community. Because the proposed Project would directly benefit the local community only, no disproportional health or environmental effect would be imposed on minority or low income populations. The proposed Project would not conflict with the purpose and objectives of EO 12898.

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

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other perform ance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

Fire Protection: The proposed Project area would be served by the City of Fresno Fire Department, Station 9 located approximately 1.5 miles away from the proposed Project site.

Police Protection: The Project area receives public safety protection provided by the City of Fresno Police Department.

Schools: Public school services are provided by Fresno Unified School District. The proposed Project site is served by Addams Elementary, Gaston Middle School, and Edison High School.

Parks: The City of Fresno and surrounding area has an abundance of local and regional parks. The nearest parks to the proposed Project site include Basin XX Park, Roeding Park, Belmont Memorial Park, and Kearney Park. Basin XX Park is located approximately

0.5-mile from the proposed Project site, while all others listed are located over 1 mile away from the site.

86 Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Public Services based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that less than significant impacts could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Public Services.

Based on a field review, information provided by the applicant, publicly available information, and observations made on the Project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si gnificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i. Fire protection?

No Impact. The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed Project. There are 23 FFD fire stations in Fresno, with the closest fire station, Fire Station 9, located approximately 1.5- miles from the Project site. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the proposed Project would not be adding additional population to the area. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access.

The FFD would continue providing services to the proposed Project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed Project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed Project would not res ult in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. No increase in need for services is expected.

ii. Police protection?

No Impact. The proposed Project site is located in an area developed with commercial, residential and quasi -public uses, and would comply with the applicable service delivery requirements necessary to provide no less than the 87 minimum acceptable level of police protection and services appropriate for residential uses. Fresno Police Department Northwest District is approximately

3.5 miles from the proposed Project site and is available to serve the proposed Project site. No increase in the demand for police services is expected

iii. Schools?

The proposed Project would not generate student demand or otherwise impact school services given that there is no housing being constructed.

iv. Parks?

No Impact. The proposed Project would not generate demand for parks or otherwise impact parks given that there is no proposed housing or any other development that could increase population in the area.

v. Other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed Project would not create any new population growth leading to increased demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, or other public facilities.

The proposed Project would comply with the requirements of relevant local departments and districts to ensure minimal impact to existing facilities which currently serve the proposed Project site.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

Based on the evaluations above for Public Services, the impacts associated with development of the Project were found to be less than significant.

References

California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). State Responsibility Area Viewer. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/Projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area- viewer/#:~:text=State%20Responsibility%20Area%20Viewer%20State%20Respo nsibility%20Areas%20%28SRA%29,response%20agency%20responsible%20for %20fire%20suppression%20and%20prevention.

California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/SchoolDirectory/Results?Title=California%20School%20 Directory&search=1&counties=53&districts=1292&status=1%2C2&types=0&nps =0&multilingual=0&charter=0&magnet=0&yearround=0&qdc=0&qsc=0&Tab=1& Order=0&Page=0&Items=0&HideCriteria=False&isStaticReport=False 88 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

XVI. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X

b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The City of Fresno and the surrounding area has several regional parks, as well as state and national parks, national forest, wilderness areas, and other resources. The closest regional park to the proposed Project is Kearney Park, located in the City of Fresno, located approximately 7 miles southwest of the proposed Project site.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Recreation based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that no impacts could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Recreation.

Would the Project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

89 No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, as the proposed Project does not propose a new amount of people to the area.

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, it was determined that there were no impacts associated with Recreation.

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

XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X

c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X

d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The City of Fresno circulation system consists of a roadway network that is primarily urban in character, surrounded by more rural systems outside of the City’s limits. Major highways that run through the city include SR 99, SR 41, SR 168, and SR 180.

The vicinity of the proposed Project is dominated by residential and commercial properties. SR 99 is adjacent to the site to the north, east, and west. There are no public transportation improvements proposed along the proposed Project site boundary. Traffic generation after proposed Project implementation would be minimal and dedicated to only maintenance on an as-needed basis.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Transportation based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that less than significant impacts could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Transportation.

91 Based on a field review, information provided by the applicant, publicly available information, and observations made on the proposed Project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

Would the Project:

a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site and the surrounding area lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Transit service does not stop adjacent to the site. Wastewater infrastructure installation would take place mostly within the boundaries of the site. During construction, traffic control measures would be used to redirect traffic. Impacts to the existing roadways during construction would be temporary. The proposed Project would not conflict with plans, policies, or ordinances addressing the circulation system.

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

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

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”

On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, dated June 25, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation 92 Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.

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

The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐ making potential. For transportation projects, the primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.”

The proposed project is eligible to screen out because Project operations would not generate daily traffic or additional vehicle miles traveled, as operations and maintenance trips are not anticipated to increase as part of the proposed Project.

Project construction trips would be generated but would be temporary during the Project construction period.

In addition, the Fresno County - VMT Screening Application demonstrates that the Project parcel is not in a High Quality Transit Area and the average VMT/employee is

19.11, where the average VMT/Employee for Fresno County is 25.60. Therefore, the parcel is 25.4% lower than the regional average. The VMT Generator type for a residential parcel that is more than 13% lower than the regional average is Low.

In conclusion, the Project will result in a less than significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. No new roadway design features are associated with the Project. As mentioned previously, all potential disturbances to roadways would be temporary.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the proposed Project does include new roadway design features or permanent alterations to roadways. Any lane closures would require adequate noticing and signage to be placed in and near the Project construction area. The operational phase of the Project would have no effect on roadways or emergency access. Therefore, overall potential Project -related impacts to emergency access on local roadways would be considered less than significant.

93 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Transportation and Traffic were found to be less than significant.

References

City of Fresno. 2020. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEQA-Guidelines-for- Vehicle-Miles-Traveled-Final-Adopted-Version.pdf

Fresno County – VMT Screening Application. Accessed May 17. 2024. https://gis1.lsa.net/FCOGVMT/

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory – On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf

94 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native A merican
tribe, and that is:

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

DISCUSSION

Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013- 14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it would undertake a Project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about Projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the Project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to request formal consultation.

Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement could be made.
95 The City is responsible for making a good faith effort to identify tribal cultural resources in the proposed Project area. A cultural resources report was prepared that involved a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System, a Sacred lands File search from the NAHC, a pedestrian survey, and tribal outreach.

Tribal consultation was requested and coordinated with the tribe.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Tribal Cultural Resources based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that less than significant impacts with mitigation could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Tribal Cultural Resources.

Would the Project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As mentioned previously, the proposed Project site is not within a designated or proposed historic district, and there are no structures which exist on or within the immediate vicinity that are listed on or considered to be eligible for the National or Local Register of Historic Places. No historical resources are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project does not involve changes to the front façade or an addition visible from the public right-of-way of a structure built 45 or more years ago, demolition of a structure constructed 45 or more years ago, or involve the modification or demolition of a designated Historic Resource. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any tribal cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, CHL, or a local register. Mitigation Measure CR-1, Mitigation Measure CR -2 & Mitigation Measure CR- 3). would be implemented to reduce damage to previously undiscovered resources.

or:
96 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known Native American resources within or adjacent to the proposed Project site. Given that the proposed Project site has previously been disturbed, there is a low potential for encountering unrecorded TCRs. In the event that a TCR is discovered on site, the relevant mitigation measures will take effect ( Mitigation Measure CR-1, Mitigation Measure CR- 2 & Mitigation Measure CR- 3).

Therefore, the proposed would not cause a substantial adv erse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined to be significant,

Mitigation Measures

The proposed project shall implement and incorporate the T ribal Cultural Resource related mitigation measures as identified in the attached Project Specific Mitigation Monitoring Checklist dated May 17, 2024.

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

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

97 • If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to deter mine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identifi ed by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City ‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐ term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur unti l the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discover y of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by furt her development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple 98 human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

Mitigation Measure CR -4: Prior to construction, the identified tribe under an agreement with the City will perform a cultural training.

Findings

With the implementation of mitigation, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to Tribal Cultural Resources.

References

California Assembly Bill 52.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB5 2 CEQA; January 1999 Revised Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5 (f). https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of- regulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3- guidelines-for-implementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article- 5-preliminary-review-of-Projects-and-conduct-of-initial-study/section-150645- determining-the-significance-of-impacts-to-archaeological-and-historical- resources

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

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effect?
X

b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X

c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X

d) Generate solid waste in excess
of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X

e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

100
The proposed Project site is currently served by multiple existing septic systems. The proposed Project would replace the septic systems by installing infrastructure to connect to the City of Fresno wastewater treatment system.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Utilities and Service Systems based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides justification for the conclusions that either no impacts or less than significant impacts could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the Project:

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has determined that adequate sanitary sewer and water services would be available to serve the proposed Project subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies.

Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality. As noted previously, the proposed Project would be adequately served by existing stormwater drainage facilities. Because the proposed Project site is located within an urbanized area with existing facilities in proximity, connection to these facilities would not cause significant environmental effects.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Less than Significant Impact. Based on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the water supplies for the City (363,540 Acre Feet (AF)/year) are adequate to accommodate the demand in the City by 2040 (i.e., 228,091 AF/year), and at buildout of the approved General Plan in 2056 (i.e., 254,834 AF/year). The proposed Project would be consistent with the General and would therefore be covered by the City’s water supply projections.

The proposed Project would be served by existing utility and service systems available to the proposed Project site and would extend these services within the site to 101
accommodate for the new equipment proposed by the Project. This would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees; compliance with the Department of Public Utilities standards, specifications, and policies; the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission and California Health Services; and implementation of the City -wide program for the completion of incremental expansions to facilities for planned water supply treatment, and storage.

The infrastructure would be connected to the existing infrastructure on the proposed Project site. The extension of this infrastructure will not require any major upsizing or other offsite construction activities that would cause a significant impact.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in wastewater from faucets and/or building restroom facilities that would be discharged into the City’s existing wastewater treatment system. The wastewater will be typical of other urban development consisting of bathroom s and other similar features. The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities has reviewed the proposed Project and determined that it can accommodate the wastewater generated from the Project (Council, 2022).

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Less than Significant Impact. Garbage disposed in the City of Fresno is taken to the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. Once trash has been off‐loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted, and non‐recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill located approximately 6 miles southwest of Kerman.

The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,200 tons per day, and a remaining capacity of over 29.3 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2018).

Operation of the proposed Project would not generate a significant amount of solid waste over current baseline conditions. Given the available capacity at the landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed Project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project’s waste disposal needs. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The proposed project would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste 102
management policies and recommendations from the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. The proposed project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies.

The proposed project would comply with Cal Green, the City’s Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Guide, and with waste management policies and recommendations from the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. The proposed project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, state, and locally recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

In the course of the above evaluation, impacts associated with Utilities and Service Systems were found to be less than significant.

References

California Department of Housing and Community Development. Cal Green Building Code. 2022. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/chapter-3-green- building

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=PRC& tocTitle=+Public+Resources+Code+-+PRC

California Department of Water Resources. Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Guidebook. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban- Water-Management-Plans/Final-2020-UWMP-Guidebook/UWMP-Guidebook- 2020---Final-032921.pdf

City of Fresno Construction and Demolition (C&D) Guide. 2016. https://www.fresno.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/ConstructionandDemolitionWasteManagement.pdf

City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan. 2020. https://www.fresno.gov/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/Fresno-2020-UWMP_Final_2021-07-21-1.pdf

Council of the City of Fresno, Resolution No. 2022-020. 2022. https://documents.fresno.gov/WebLink/edoc/11964866/Resolution%20-%20%20- %202022-020%20-%201272022.pdf?dbid=0&repo=LF-Repository 103

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

XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X

c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X

d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X

DISCUSSION

Environmental Setting

The proposed project is located in an urbanized environment. No forest land is located in the vicinity of the site.

Impact Analysis

The following includes an analysis of environmental parameters related to Wildfire based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The discussion not only includes the areas for which there is potential for environmental impacts but also provides 104
justification for the conclusions that less than significant impact could occur. The CEQA Checklist question, discussion, and environmental significance conclusion are provided below under each individual environmental parameter related to Wildfire.

Would the Project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located on or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ). Use of the proposed Project site during construction and operation will not impair any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

No Impact. The proposed Project site and surrounding parcels are on geologically flat land and are not in an area classified as very high FHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

No Impact. The proposed Project does not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure other than the sewer system connection being proposed. The project will not require installation of new roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, and would therefore not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

No Impact. The location of the proposed Project does not fall within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard area, nor are there any sheer or unstable cliffs in the immediate area. Neither the occupants nor the structures would be exposed to significant risks from flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire runoff.

105
Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures required.

Findings

Based upon the review of the information above, the implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact with respect to Wildfire.

References

California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). State Responsibility Area Viewer and SRA Fire Safe Regulations. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

California Public Resources Code (CPRC). Division 4, Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands. Part 2 Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands. Chapter 2, Hazardous Fire Areas, Sections 4251-4290.5.

California Public Resources Code (CPRC). Division 4, Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands. Part 2 Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands. Chapter 3, Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands, Sections 4291-4299.

FEMA FIRM 2020 – National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home

106

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

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X

b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effec ts of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X

c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X

DISCUSSION

Impact Analysis

Based on the analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study the following findings can be made:

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to 107
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. The applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated as described in each impact area to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a Project is significant and whether the effects of the Project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a Project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past Projects, other current Projects, and probable future Projects. Due to the nature of the proposed Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All Project -related impacts were determined to be either less than significant, or less than significant after mitigation. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase in need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). Due to buildout of the area and existing land constraints, it is not anticipated that further substantial commercial or residential development will occur in the area in the foreseeable future. As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the lack of proposed new development in the area and the insignificance of Project -induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated as described in each specific impact area which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Page intentionally left blank

Appendix A

Soar Environmental Consulting. 2023. CalEEMod Air Quality/GHG Study for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, Fresno, CA 93705

CALEEMOD AIR QUALITY/GHG STUDY

Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Upgrade
1941 N Golden State Blvd
Fresno, CA 93705

Prepared by

1401 Fulton St, Suite 918
Fresno, CA 93721

April 2023

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts Analysis ................................................................... 5

3.1 Project Emissions Estimation ......................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Criteria Pollutants from Project Construction ............................................................................... 7

3.3 Criteria Pollutants from Project Operation ................................................................................... 8

3.4 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.4.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................ 8

3.4.2 State ................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.4.3 Local ................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.5 Results of Criteria Emissions Analyses ......................................................................................... 11

3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction and Operation ................................................... 13

3.7 Results of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis ........................................................................... 14

4.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 15

6.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables
Table 1: Land Use Data for CalEEMod Input – N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, CA Table 2: SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Table 3: Construction Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Table 4: Operational Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Table 5: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary and Significance E valuation Table 6: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Appendices
Appendix A: CalEEMod Outputs
April 6, 2023
Armando Murrieta
Self-Help Enterprises
8445 W Elowin Court
P.O. Box 6520
Visalia, CA 93290
RE: CALEEMOD Air Quality/GHG Study, 1941 N Golden State Blvd Fresno, CA 93705 Dear Mr. Murrieta:

Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. is pleased to submi t this assessment under my supervision in accordance with accepted environmental practices and procedures, as of the date of this report. I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have employed a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable environmental professionals practicing in this area. The conclusions contained within this assessment are based upon site conditions readily observed or were reasonably ascertainable.

Matthew D. Fidel, Senior Project Manager
Soar Environmental Consulting

1.0 Introduction
The p
roposed project is located at 1941 N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, CA 93705 and involves the abandonment or removal of approximately 20 existing septic systems, installation of 1 lift station, installation of approximately 3,000 linear feet of 6 -inch diameter gravity sewer main, installation of 102 sewer service lateral connections to the new internal 6 -inch main, and installation of approximately 15 on-site manholes. The minimum depth of the pipe would be 3-feet, and the trench would be cut through either paved or previously disturbed areas. The 9.8 -acre parcel is currently occupied by an active mobile home park. Project construction mainly consists of trenching.

The
proposed project is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by various commercial and residential properties. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a business park adjacent to the south. The site is adjacent to SR 99 to the north, east, and west. The nearest school to the project site is Addams Elementary school, approximately 0.5 -mile to the southwest across SR 99. The nearest airport is Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, approximately 4.5 miles south of the proposed project site.

2.0 Assumptions
T
he following basic assumptions were used in developing the emission estimates for the proposed project using the California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod):
• C
alEEMod defaults were applied to all phases of the project, unless otherwise specified. • Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) default trip distances for Fresno County, as contained in CalEEMod, were assumed for the operational traffic analysis. • Some project design features including sizes and number of buildings were defined by the Applicant and replaced some CalEEMod default settings.
• CalEEMod construction timelines are generally accurate, unless otherwise stated • During the site preparation and grading phases of construction, it is anticipated that no soil will need to be exported from or imported to the project site. • The default equipment from CalEEMod for each construction phase, is representative of actual construction equipment used during construction.

3.0 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts Analysis A
ppendix G of the California Environm ental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains an Environmental Checklist Form which consists of a series of questions that are intended to encourage a thoughtful assessment of impacts. In order to evaluate the questions in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sections of the checklist, quantitative significance criteria established by the local air quality agency, such as SJVAPCD, may be relied upon to make significance determinations based on mass emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs, as determined in this report.

3.1 Project Emissions Estimation
The c
onstruction and operation analysis were performed using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, the official statewide land use computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for estimating p otential

criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations of land use projects under CEQA. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, s uch as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The mobile source emission factors used in the model –published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) – include the Pavley standards and Low Carbon Fuel standards. The model also identifies project design features, regulatory measures, and mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from the selected measures. CalEEMod was d eveloped by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Managem ent District (SCAQMD), and other California air districts. Default land use data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) were provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions. As the official assessment methodology for land use projects in California, CalEEMod is relied upon herein for construction and operational emissions quantification, which forms the basis for the impact analysis.

Based on information received from the Applicant, land use data for CalEEMod input is presented in Table

1. The total parcel area is 9.8 acres. Project construction would only take place on a small portion of the site. The SJVAPCD quantitative significance thresholds shown in Table 2 were used to evaluate project emissions impacts (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 1: Land Use Data for CalEEMod Input – N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, CA

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area
(Approx.)
Population
(Approx.)
Other Asphalt
Surfaces 108 1000sqft 2.48 108,000 0
T
able 2: SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
So
urce: SJVAPCD 2015

3. 2 Criteria Pollutants from Project Construction
A
project’s construction phase produces many types of emissions, but PM10 and PM2.5 in fugitive dust and diesel engine exhaust are the pollutants of greatest concern. Fugitive dust emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle exhaust. Construction-related emissions can cause substantial increases in localized concentrations of PM10, as well as affecting PM10 compliance with ambient air quality standards on a regional basis. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects as well as nuisance concerns such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. The use of diesel - powered construction equipment emits ozone precursors oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM). Use of architectural coatings and other materials associated with finishing buildings may also emit Reactive Organic Gases ( ROG). CEQA significance thresholds address the impacts of construction activity emissions on local and regional air quality.

P
M10 emitted during construction can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors, making quantification difficult. Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that there are several feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction.

3. 3 Criteria Pollutants from Project Operation
T
he term “project operations” refers to the full range of activities that can or may generate criteria pollutant and GHG emissions when the project is functioning in its intended use. For projects, such as office parks, shopping centers, apartment buildings, residential subdivisions, and other indirect sources, motor vehicles traveling to and from the project represents the primary source of air pollutant emissions.

For industrial projects and some commercial projects, equipment operation and manufacturing processes, i.e., permitted stationary sources, can be of greatest concern from an emissions standpoint. CEQA significance thresholds address the impacts of operational emission sources on local and regional air quality.

F
or the purpose of this analysis, the CalEEMod generated default trip rate was used for calculated project operation emissions.

3.4 Regulatory Setting

3.4.1 F
ederal
Clean Air Act
T
he Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for CO2.

Thes
e standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved.

3.4.2 S
tate
California Clean Air Act
T
he California Clean Air Act (CCAA) allows the state to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations if they are at least as stringent as federal standards. California Air Resources Board ( CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS). CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control me asures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It a lso sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.

The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states conta ining areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register.

3.4.3 Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The District’s primary responsibility is the control of air pollution from stationary sources (sources other than direct motor vehicle emissions, which are the responsibility of the ARB and EPA). Permitting stationary sources provides a number of benefits to the public and to regulated sources. It provides an opportunity for the project proponent, the District, and the interested public to provide input and to assess a project’s compliance with federal, state, and local air requirements prior to beginning construction. It also provides a mechanism to consolidate and simplify the applicable air regulations in one brief document; and it provides guidance to both the applicant and the District that can be used on an ongoing basis to assure that the equipment or process is operating in compliance with those rules.

Because of the severity of the air quality problems, permits are required in the Valley for very small sources of emissions; as little as two pounds of emissions per day can trigger permitting requirements.

The permitting process involves two steps. The first step requires the applicant to apply for and receive an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit. Construction of new or modified facilities or equipment may not legally proceed until an ATC is issued by the District. The requirements that must be met to obtain a permit in the Valley are among the strictest in the nation, requiring mitigation of emissions using best available control technology (BACT) and for non-agricultural sources offsetting emissions when above certain thresholds (SB 700). The second step, issuing the Permit to Operate (PTO), occurs after the applicant has properly installed the equipment allowed by the Authority to Construct.

In addition to permitting stationary sources the District is required by the CCAA to develop "indirect source" control programs in their attainment plans. Indirect sources are defined as any building, facility, activity center, etc. that attracts motor vehicle trips. The District committed to reducing PM10 and NOx emis
sions from indirect sources in the 2003 PM10 Plan and the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. The District’s Governing Board adopted District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) in October 2006 as a result of this commitment. District Rule 9510 requires applicants to mitigate project impacts through the incorporation of on-site emission reducing design elements and/or the payment of fees that would be used to fund off-site emissions reduction projects.

The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary long range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals
The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1. When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.

SJVAPCD Construction Mitigation Measures
AB
170 requires general plans to include feasible implementation measures to reduce air quality impacts.

Effective types of mitigation depend on the size and type of project being considered. The District therefore recommends different mitigation strategies for different types of projects.

The District has identified three (3) mitigation strategies, based on project size, which can be used to develop plan-specific feasible mitigation measures.
1) General plan updates, large specific plans, new town Mitigation Strategies:
• Adopt air quality element/general plan air quality policies/specific plan policies • Adopt Local Air Quality Mitigation Fee Program (Stockton and Turlock have adopted suc h
p
rograms)
• Fund TCM program: transit, bicycle, pedestrian, traffic flow improvements, transportation s
ystem management, rideshare, telecommuting, video-conferencing, etc. • Adopt air quality enhancing design guidelines/standards • Designate pedestrian/transit oriented development areas on general plan/specific plan/ planned development land use maps
• Adopt ordinance limiting woodburning appliances/fireplace installations • Fugitive dust regulation enforcement coordinated with SJVUAPCD • Energy efficiency incentive programs
• Local alternative fuels programs
• Co
ordinate location of land uses to separate odor generators and sensitive receptors 2) General plan amendments, small specific plans, and some zone changes Mitigation Strategies:
• Apply general plan policies, local ordinances and programs from above to the project site or adopt similar site specific programs
• Provide pedestrian/transit oriented project design
• Contribute to Local Air Quality Mitigation Fee Fund
• Contribute towards TCM implementation programs
• Commit to on-site improvements; bikeways, transit infrastructure, pedestrian enhancements • Provide traffic flow improvements for areas impacted by the project 3) Tentative maps, site plans, conditional use permits
Mitigation Strategies:
• Apply general plan policies and local ordinances and programs from above to the project site • Pedestrian/Transit oriented site design
• Provide on-site improvement: bikeways, transit infrastructure, pedestrian enhancements • Contribute to Local Air Quality Mitigation Fee Fund
• Contribute to TCM implementation
• Energy conservation measures above and beyond requirements • Pay for fleet vehicle conversions to alternative fuels SJVAPCD Mitigation Measures can been seen in Appendix C to this report.

City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno's General Plan has two objectives in place related to the improvement of air quality within the city. The following objectives are applicable to the proposed Project:
• RC-4
: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
• RC-5: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take timely, necessary, and the most cost effective actions to achieve and maintain reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and all strategies that reduce the causes of climate change in order to limit and prevent the related potential detrimental effects upon public health and welfare of present and future residents of the Fresno community.

3. 5 Results of Criteria Emissions Analyses

• Table 3 shows unmitigated and mitigated criteria construction emissions and evaluates mitigated emissions against SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

• Table 4 shows unmitigated and mitigated criteria operational emissions and evaluates mitigated emissions against SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

As shown in Tables 3 and 4 , mass emissions of criteria pollutants from construction and operation are below applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds, i.e., Less Than Significant (LTS).

PROJECTED IMPACT: Less Than Significant

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION: None Required

Table 3: Construction Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015

Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
t
ons/yr tons/yr tons/yr
ROG (VOC) 0.21 0.21 10 LTS
NOx 1.61 1.61 10 LTS
PM10 (exhaust) 0.06 0.06 15 L TS
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.06 0.06 15 LTS
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust) 0.10 0.10 BMPs L TS
CO 1.79 1.79 100 LTS
Criteria Pollutants Significance

Table 4: Operational Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015

3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction and Operation

Greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous (N2O) oxide, collectively reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) – are directly emitted from stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters , boilers, process heaters, and furnaces. GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e. power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility. Also, included in GHG quantification is electric power used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills. (CARB 2017).

Since the Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high efficiency lighting, high -efficiency heating, ventilating, and air -conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double-glazed windows, water conserving plumbing fixtures, etc.), they indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions.

Using CalEEMod, direct on-site and off-site GHG emissions were estimated for construction and operation, and indirect off-site GHG emissions were estimated to account for electric power used by the proposed project, water conveyance, and solid waste disposal.

Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
t
ons/yr tons/yr tons/yr
ROG (VOC) 0.009 0.009 10 LTS
NOx 0.000 0.000 10 LTS
PM10 (exhaust) 0.000 0.000 15 L TS
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.000 0.000 15 LTS
PM10/PM2.5
(fugitive dust) 0.000 0.000 BMPs L TS
CO 0.001 0.001 100 LTS
Criteria Pollutants Significance

3.7 Results of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

Statewide goals for GHG reductions in the years beyond 2020 were codified into state law with the passage of SB 32, which as described previously mandates that California achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at lea st 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. This equates to 40 percent below the statewide GHG reduction target for the year 2020.

Therefore, Project GHG emissions are quantified and compared to the thresholds issued by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which is an association of the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California, including the SJVAPCD . CAPCOA recommends a significance threshold of 900 metric tons annually. This threshold is based on a capture rate of 90 percent of land use development projects, which in turn translates into a 90 percent capture rate of all GHG emissions. The 900 metric ton threshold, the lowest promulgated in any region in the state, is considered by CAPCOA to be low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future projects that will be constructed to accommodate future (year 2050) statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.

Tables 5 and 6 show unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions. To show compliance with SJV APCD use of BPS to show significance, the project would implement applicable and feasible reduction measures.

Table 5: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0

Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
MT/yr MT/yr MT/yr
CO2 313.14 313.14 N/A N/A
CH4 0.05 0.05 N/A N/A
N20 0.01 0.01 N/A N/A
CO2e 316.30 316.30 1,100 LTS
Greenhouse Gases Significance

Table 6: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation

Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0

PROJECTED IMPACT: Less Than Significant

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION: None Required

4.0 Conclusion

The project’s emissions would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants and would not result in inconsistency with the air quality plan for this criterion. The project’s proposed land use designation would provide uses and development patterns consistent with the land use policies of the City of Fresno General Plan. The project complies with all applicable control measures from the air quality plan therefore, the project is consistent with the air quality plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.0 Limitations

The scope of services performed to complete this assessment are limited in nature. Site conditions can vary with time; therefore, this assessment is not intended to predict future site conditions. Because of the nature of this assessment, site history has been developed based solely upon information provided by the Client or during the review of available regulatory files on this, and nearby sites. This report is not a complete risk assessment, and the scope of services does not include a complete determination of the extent of, nor the environmental or public health impact of, known or suspected hazardous materials or wastes.

The information and conclusions contained in this report are based upon work performed by trained professional and technical staff in accordance with generally accepted engineering and scientific practices at the time the work was performed. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein represent the best judgment of Soar Environmental staff and are based upon the information obtained from field reconnaissance and data review. Due to the nature of this investigation, Soar Environmental cannot warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice.

Should additional information become available which differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, we request that this information be brought to our attention so that we may reassess the conclusions provided herein.

Unmitigated Mitigated Threshold
MT/yr MT/yr MT/yr
CO2 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A
CH4 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A
N20 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A
CO2e 0.00 0.00 BMPs LTS
Greenhouse Gases Significance

6.0 References

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District). 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
). Accessed August 26, 2021.

California Emissions Estimation Model® (CalEEMod). 2020. Version 2020.4.0. Website (http://www.caleemod.com/
). Accessed August 26, 2021.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Building Energy Efficiency Program. Website (http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
). Accessed August 26, 2021.

City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Accessed April 2023

Appendix A. CalEEMod Outputs
__________________________________________________________________ Three Palms
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 3,000 linear feet of 6-inch diameter gravity sewer main, installation of 102 sewer service lateral connections to the new internal 6-inch main, and installation of approximately 15 on-site manholes. assuming 6 feet deep, 6 feet wide for trenching.

Construction Phase - No demo or arch coating, mostly trenching

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Asphalt Surfaces 108.00 1000sqft 2.48 108,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2027Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 1 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.2055 1.6082 1.7856 3.6700e-
003

0.0773 0.0644 0.1416 0.0251 0.0615 0. 0866 0.0000 313.1426 313.1426 0.0489 6.4900e- 003
316.2983
Maximum 0.2055 1.6082 1.7856 3.6700e-
003

0.0773 0.0644 0.1416 0.0251 0.0615 0. 0866 0.0000 313.1426 313.1426 0.0489 6.4900e- 003
316.2983
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.2055 1.6082 1.7856 3.6700e-
003

0.0773 0.0644 0.1416 0.0251 0.0615 0. 0866 0.0000 313.1424 313.1424 0.0489 6.4900e- 003
316.2980
Maximum 0.2055 1.6082 1.7856 3.6700e-
003

0.0773 0.0644 0.1416 0.0251 0.0615 0. 0866 0.0000 313.1424 313.1424 0.0489 6.4900e- 003
316.2980
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 2 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 0.3563 0.3563
2 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 0.5011 0.5011
3 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 0.5066 0.5066
Highest 0.5066 0.5066

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 9.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e- 003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 3 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e- 003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2024 1/31/2024 5 3 2 Grading Grading 2/1/2024 2/8/2024 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 2/9/2024 12/12/2024 5 220 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 4 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 12/13/2024 12/26/2024 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 2.48
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 5 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8600e-
003

0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2561
Total 1.8600e-
003

0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

7.5000e-
004

3.1400e-
003

2.6000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

9.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2561
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 45.00 18.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 6 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736
Total 3.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8600e-
003

0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

0.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2561
Total 1.8600e-
003

0.0197 0.0144 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

7.5000e-
004

3.1400e-
003

2.6000e-
004

6.9000e-
004

9.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2561
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 7 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736
Total 3.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9000e-
003

0.0415 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

1.7200e-
003

1.5800e-
003

0.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4750
Total 3.9000e-
003

0.0415 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 1.7200e-
003

0.0230 0.0103 1.5800e-
003

0.0119 0.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4750
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 8 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1840
Total 9.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1840
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0. 0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9000e-
003

0.0415 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

1.7200e-
003

1.5800e-
003

0.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4750
Total 3.9000e-
003

0.0415 0.0261 6.0000e-
005

0.0213 1.7200e-
003

0.0230 0.0103 1.5800e-
003

0.0119 0.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4750
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 9 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1840
Total 9.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

6.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1840
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1757 1.4106 1.5510 2.7500e-
003

0.0592 0.0592 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 228.4853 228.4853 0.0426 0.0000 229.5492 Total 0.1757 1.4106 1.5510 2.7500e-
003

0.0592 0.0592 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 228.4853 228.4853 0.0426 0.0000 229.5492 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 10 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0870 0.0255 3.9000e-
004

0.0131 5.6000e-
004

0.0137 3.7900e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.3300e-
003

0.0000 37.4306 37.4306 1.9000e-
004

5.6300e-
003

39.1145
Worker 0.0142 8.7500e-
003

0.1076 3.3000e-
004

0.0396 1.8000e-
004

0.0398 0.0105 1.7000e-
004

0.0107 0.0000 30.0969 30.0969 8.5000e-
004

8.3000e-
004

30.3669
Total 0.0162 0.0957 0.1331 7.2000e-
004

0.0527 7.4000e-
004

0.0534 0.0143 7.1000e-
004

0.0150 0.0000 67.5275 67.5275 1.0400e-
003

6.4600e-
003

69.4814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1757 1.4106 1.5510 2.7500e-
003

0.0592 0.0592 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 228.4851 228.4851 0.0426 0.0000 229.5489 Total 0.1757 1.4106 1.5510 2.7500e-
003

0.0592 0.0592 0.0567 0.0567 0.0000 228.4851 228.4851 0.0426 0.0000 229.5489 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 11 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0870 0.0255 3.9000e-
004

0.0131 5.6000e-
004

0.0137 3.7900e-
003

5.4000e-
004

4.3300e-
003

0.0000 37.4306 37.4306 1.9000e-
004

5.6300e-
003

39.1145
Worker 0.0142 8.7500e-
003

0.1076 3.3000e-
004

0.0396 1.8000e-
004

0.0398 0.0105 1.7000e-
004

0.0107 0.0000 30.0969 30.0969 8.5000e-
004

8.3000e-
004

30.3669
Total 0.0162 0.0957 0.1331 7.2000e-
004

0.0527 7.4000e-
004

0.0534 0.0143 7.1000e-
004

0.0150 0.0000 67.5275 67.5275 1.0400e-
003

6.4600e-
003

69.4814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Paving 3.2500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.4600e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7574 7.7574 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 12 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Paving 3.2500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.4600e-
003

0.0405 0.0585 9.0000e-
005

1.9800e-
003

1.8300e-
003

0.0000 7.7573 7.7573 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8188
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 13 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

1.6300e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4560 0.4560 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4601
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 14 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-
W
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.531212 0.053720 0.175693 0.143990 0.023462 0.006329 0.014830 0.022874 0.000693 0.000284 0.022838 0.001406 0.002670 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 15 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 16 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0. 0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 17 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 18 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 9.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Unmitigated 9.3300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

2.2500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

6.9800e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Total 9.3200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 19 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

2.2500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

6.9800e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Total 9.3200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9300e-
003

1.9300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0600e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 20 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 21 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 22 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 23 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 4/6/2023 1:43 PMPage 24 of 24 Three Palms - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Appendix B

Soar Environmental Consulting. 2023. Biological Resource Assessment for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park Wastewater Collection and Disposal Project at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, Fresno, CA 93705

Biological Resource Assessment
Three Palms Mobile Home Park Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Assessor Parcel Number 422-126-26
Fresno County, CA

Prepared for:

602 Lyell Drive
Modesto, CA 95356
(209) 322-1820

Prepared by:

1322 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 400
Fresno, California 93710

April 3, 2023

Executive Summary
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Incorporated ( Client) proposes a sustainable long -term wastewater collection and disposal plan for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community.

The Three Palms Mobile Home Park community consists of 99 residences on 9.8-a cres, located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard in the City of Fresno in California, 93705- APN 442-126-22. As lead agency, the City of Fresno (City) requires an environmental a ssessment, including the review of biological resources in the area, reconnaissance survey of the property, and preparation of a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA). The City will use this technical study in its review to approve the pro posed Project. The Client tasked Soar Environmental Consulting Inc. (Soar Environmental) to conduct the BRA in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Soar Environmental prepared this Biological Resource Assessment in support of the California Environmental Quality Act requirements. The objectives of this Biological Resource Assessment are to: 1) provide a general characterization of biological resources for the property; 2) inventory plant and wildlife species; 3) evaluate the potential for federal or state listed plants and animal species afforded other special regulatory protection; and 4) describe the property’s sensitive biological resources and applicable federal, state, and local land use policies.

This Biological Resource Assessment provides information about the biological resources within the Project Site. Prior to field activities, Soar Environmental researche d the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv ice (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, to compile a list of special -status species that could potentially be present in the vicinity of the Project Site. Soar Environmental researched specific species and habitat requirements for the species noted in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases and included species listing status, and proximal species observations in this report.

The Habitat Assessment emphasized the search for suitable habitat conditions of special-status species identified in the data record search . No suitable habitats were observed for any of the special status species identified in this report. All special -status species identified in the record search are unlikely to occur in the Project site, due to lack of suitable habitat, proximity, and time elapsed since historical occurrences. 1 Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4

2. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology ................................................................................................ 7

3. Special-Status Species .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions ........................................................................... 15

3.2.1. California Tiger Salamander (A. californiense) ..................................................................... 15

3.2.2. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) ................................................................................ 16

3.2.2. Fresno Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys. nitradoides exillis) ........................................................ 16

3.2.3. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) ................................................................................... 17

3.2.4. Pallid Bat (Antrozous. pallidus) ........................................................................................... 17

3.2.5. Western Mastiff Bat (Eumpos perotis californicus) ............................................................ 18

3.2 Special-Status Plant Species Descriptions ............................................................................ 19

3.2.1. California Jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) .................................................................. 19

3.2.2. Dwarf Downingia (Downingia pusilla) ................................................................................. 19

3.2.3. Sanford’s Arrowhead (Sagittaria. sanfordii) ....................................................................... 19

4. Habitat Assessment Results ................................................................................................................... 20

5. Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 20

7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 22

8. Study Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 22 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Figures
Figure 1 - Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 - Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 - Project Site Boundary ................................................................................................................... 4

1 Figure 4 - Special-Status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site ................................................... 7

Tables
Table 1 - Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species ................................................................................. 9 Table 2 - Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species ................................................................................... 13

Appendix A: Site Photos ................................................................................................................................ 26 Appendix B: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) ............................................................................. 35 Appendix C: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) ............................................................... 26

2 1. Introduction
The proposed Project is to provide a sustainable long -term wastewater collection and disposal plan for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community . The Three Palms Mobile Home Park community consists of 99 residences on 9.8 acres, located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard in the City of Fresno in California, 93705 - APN 442-126-22. The Project Site consists of a mobile home community surrounded by stone wall, with paved roads throughout the property.

A review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) was conducted on March 16, 2023, to identify sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring in the area. The results indicated six (6) special -status wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site.

Wildlife Species with Potential for Occurrence

1. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

2. Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

3. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

4. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitradoides exillis)

5. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

6. Western mastiff bat (Eumpos perotis californicus)

Potential sensitive plant species were reviewed using the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB records. The data records search identified three (3) sensitive plant species with potential of occurrence in the vicinity of the Project Site:

Plants Species with Potential for Occurrence

1. California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)

2. Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)

3. Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)

A Habitat Assessment was completed on March 15, 2023, to search for the presence of special-status species and the habitat thereof, which was historically observed within or surrounding the Project Site. The Habitat Assessment was conducted outside of the blooming period for most special-status plant species identified in the record search, and protocol level surveys were not conducted as part of the as part of the Habitat Assessment. No special - status species were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat was for any of the special-status species identified in this report.

1.1 Project Location
The Project Site is located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, in the City of Fresno and the County of Fresno, California, in an urbanized area adjacent to State Highway 99. It is comprised of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 442-126-22, and located in the USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle of Fresno North, it can be found in Township 13 South, Range 20 East, in the southwest quarter of section 30, at an elevation of approximately 300 feet (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Project Location

The Project Site is located at 1941 North Golden State Boulevard, in the City of Fresno, California. APN 442-126-22.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed project plan is to support the sustainable long-term wastewater collection and disposal plan for the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community (Figure 2). A development plan and project description for the Project Site will be prepared using this Assessment as a planning tool for avoidance and minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources. The new drain wells will be located in four locations . The first set of drain wells will be located in the south end of the Project Site , on the access road behind units 1 and 2. The second set of drain wells will be located in the southwest section of the Project Site, by a recreation area with an access road through the recreation area and a paved road in the community near units 23 and 29. The third set of drain wells will be located on the northwest section of the Project Site, in the recreation area adjacent to unit 88 and near a paved road through the community.

The last set of drain wells will be located in the northeast section of the Project Site, on a paved road through the community between the units 80 and 70 (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Site Plan

Left side of image is south facing; Right side of image is north facing. Tentative site plan map: four sets of new drain wells planned to be installed in the south, southwest, northwest, and northeast section of the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community. The Southwest and Southeast drains are located in grass or recreation areas, near paved access roads within the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community. The South drain is located on an access road behind units 1 and 2 within the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community. The Northeast drain is located on an access road between units 80 and 70 within the Three Palms Mobile Home Park community

1.3 Environmental Setting
The Project Site is at approximately 300 feet elevation with a relatively flat topography.

The Project Site is located within The City of Fresno. The Project Site is adjacent to an undeveloped area to the south, a commercial area of The City of Fresno and the northbound side of California State Highway 99 to the west, an undeveloped area and the onramp to the northbound side of California State Highway 99 to the north, and the road, North Golden State Boulevard, to the east. An independent standing evaporation pond is located within 1,200 feet southeast to the Project Site, on the corner of West McKinley Avenue and North West Avenue.

The 9.8 acres of the Project Site comprises of 9 9 residences, paved and unpaved access roads to each residence, mostly paved parking by each residence, a storage area, a designated car wash area, a community laundry, a shop, an office, a community swimming pool, and three grass areas for recreational use . The ground cover is mostly concrete with some eucalyptus, oak, and palm trees along the north side of the property, and small patches of ruderal weeds, and grass around the perimeter of the property as well.

Figure 3 - Project Site Boundary

Project Site 9.8 -acres mostly comprised of urban and developed residential housing area. Project Site is adjacent to the north bound onramp of California State Highway 99 and an undeveloped property adjacent to but not associated with the Project Site.

2. Methods

2.1 Literature Review
The project is located inside the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle of Fresno North. An analysis was performed on the quadrangle Fresno North and the eight quadrangles surrounding it:

Fresno North, Malaga, Clovis, Friant, Kearney Park, Gregg, Fresno South, Herndon, and Lanes Bridge.

The analysis consisted of a records search for threatened and/or endangered species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project Site . The records search in cluded a review of the CNDDB, USFWS IPaC, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory. A list of special-status plant and animal species was created using the data collected from these databases . Proximal locations of special-status plant and animal species located within five miles of the Project Site are shown in (Figure 4).

The results from CNDDB identified historical occurrences of the following 21 sensitive wildlife species:

1. American badger (Taxidea taxus)

2. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

3. California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis)

4. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

5. Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)

6. Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii),

7. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis)

8. Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus)

9. Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

10. Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra)

11. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

12. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

13. Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

14. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

15. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

16. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus),

17. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

18. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus)

19. Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata)

20. Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)

21. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

The results from the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB identified 14 sensitive plant species historically occurring in the vicinity of the Project Site:

1. California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)

2. California satintail (Imperata brevifolia)

3. Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)

4. Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei)

5. Hairy Orcutt grass (Downingia pusilla)

6. Hartweg’s golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia)

7. Hoover’s calycadenia (Calycadenia hooveri)

8. Madera leptosiphon (Leptosiphon serrulatus)

9. Munz’s tidy-tips (Layia munzii)

10. Pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii)

11. San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis)

12. Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)

13. Spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum)

14. Succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja campestris var. succulent)

A search of the IPaC an additional federally listed special-status plant species are likely to occur within or near the Project Site : palmate-bracted bird’s beak (Cordylanthus palmatus).

In addition, IPaC also indicated five additional federally listed special-status wildlife species:

1. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus)

2. California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

3. Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)

4. Fisher (Pekania pennanti)

Locations of special-status species identified in the C NDDB record search , proximal to the Project Site are depicted in (F igure 4). Special-status species identified in the data records search are listed with potential for occurrence in (Tables 1 and 2). Only species with potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site are discussed further.

Figure 4 - Special-Status Species Locations Proximate to the Project Site

This map shows the closest and most recent special-status species locations from the CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS Online Rare Plant Inventory.

2.2 Field Reconnaissance Methodology
A Habitat Assessment was conducted March 15, 2023. The Project site is already developed, with paved roads and residences covering the entire property . A Soar biologist searched for bird nests, small mammal burrows, vegetation, vernal pools, and other signs of wildlife occupancy. Although the Habitat Assessment was conducted outside of the blooming period for most special-status plant species identified in this report, and protocol level wildlife surveys were outside the scope of this analysis, no sign of any referenced special -status wildlife species, or sensitive plant species were observed in the vicinity of the project site.

3. Special-Status Species
A total of 41 special-status species were documented in the vicinity of the Project Site; 15 plant, and 26 wildlife species, respectively. As per Section 2.1, historical and current data collected on habitat suitability, elevation, geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and the proximity of occurrences , recorded in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases. Species identified in Section 2.1 with no potential for occurrence were excluded from further analysis. Narratives are provided only for species which there are land use planning and regulatory implications.

Special-status species and sensitive habitats include plant and wildlife taxa, or other unique biological features that are afforded special protection by local land use policies, and/or state and federal regulations. Special- status species are those listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. Vegetation communities may warrant special- status if they are of limited distribution, have high wildlife value, or are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Listed and special-status species are defined as:
• Listed or proposed for listing under the state or Federal Endangered Species acts; • Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act); • California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern; • Listed as species of concern by CNPS or USFWS; and/or • Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.

Special-status species considered for this analysis are based on the literature review from Section 2.1 and the Habitat Assessment results from Section 2.2 (Table 2, Table 3). • Present: Species known to occur on the site, based on CNDDB records, and/or was observed on the site during the field survey.
• High: Species known to occur on or near the site (based on CNDDB records within 8 kilometers or 5 miles) or there is suitable habitat on the site. • Low: Species known to occur in the vicinity of the site, and there is marginal habitat onsite. -OR- Species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site; however, there is suitable habitat on the site.
• None: Species is not known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and there is no suitable habitat for the species on the site. -OR- Species was surveyed for during the appropriate season with negative results.

Table 1 - Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species Common/ Scientific
Name
*Listing
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
Amphibians
California Tiger Salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) FT/ST/-
Grasslands, oak savannah
riparian woodlands and lower
elevations of coniferous
forests, ditches, vernal pools,
and wetlands.

Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.

Western Spadefoot
(Spea hammondii) FE/-/SSC
Rivers with sandy banks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores; loose, gravelly
areas of streams in drier
parts of range.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Birds
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) -/-/SSC
Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

California Condor
(Gymnogyps californianus)

FE/SE/FP

MBTA/WL
Savannah, grasslands,
chaparral, foothills. Deep
canyons containing clefts in
the rocky walls provide
nesting sites.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Least Bell’s Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) FE/SE/BCC
Willow-cottonwood forests,
oak woodlands, shrubby
thickets, and dry washes.

During the migration- coastal
scrub, woodland, and
riparian habitats.

Low: Species is not known
to occur in the vicinity of
the site; however, there is
suitable habitat on the
site.

Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) -/ST/MBTA
Nests in isolated trees or
riparian woodlands adjacent
to suitable foraging habitat
(agricultural fields,
grasslands, etc.).

High: Species known to
occur on or near the site
(based on CNDDB records
within 8 kilometers or 5
miles) and there is
suitable habitat on the
site.

Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
-/ST/BCC

Found in areas near water,
such as marshes, grasslands,
and wetlands. They require
some sort of substrate
nearby to build nests.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)

FT/SE/MBTA
Woodlands near streams or
lakes, abandoned farmland,
old fruit orchards,
successional shrubland and
dense thickets.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Fish
Hardhead
(Mylopharodon conocephalus) -/-/SSC
Found at low to mid-
elevations in undisturbed
habitats of larger streams
with high water quality
(clear, cool). Hardhead can
acclimate to water
temperatures of 12 and
20°C.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Invertebrates
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio) FE/-/-
Inhabit large, cool-water vernal
pools from early November to
early April, which fill with
water in the rainy season, then
slowly dry up.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Crotch Bumble Bee
(Bombus crotchii) FT/SC/-
Grasslands and shrublands,
with food sources; milkweeds,
dusty maidens, lupines, medics,
phacelias, sages, clarkias,
poppies, and wild buckwheats.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus) FC/-/-
Closed-cone coniferous forest.

Roosts located in wind-
protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water
sources nearby.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT/-/-
Occurs only in the Central
Valley of California, in
association with blue
elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana), in riparian scrub
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT/-/-
Endemic to the grasslands of
the Central Valley, Central
Coast mountains, and South
Coast mountains, in valley
foothills grasslands, vernal
pools, and wetlands.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Mammals
American Badger
(Taxidea taxus) -/-/SSC
Uncommon, permanent
resident found throughout
most of the state. Most
abundant in drier open stages
of shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Fisher
(Pekania pennanti) FE/ST/SSC
Occurs in intermediate to large
tree stages of coniferous
forests and deciduous-riparian
habitats with a high percent
canopy closure.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Fresno Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys nitradoides exillis) FE/SE/-
Arid and alkaline plains under
shrub and grass vegetation,
coastal scrub, open stages of
chaparral, and desert scrub
habitats, and in conifer
woodlands.

Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.

Pallid Bat
(Antrozous pallidus) -/-/SSC
Habitats include grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in open,
dry habitats with rocky areas
for roosting. A yearlong
resident in most of the range.

Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.

San Joaquin Kit Fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) FE/SE/-
Arid flat grasslands, scrublands,
and alkali meadows with short
vegetation.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Spotted Bat
(Euderma maculatum) -/-/SSC
Foothills, mountains and desert
regions of southern California.

Elevational range extends from
below sea level to above
10,000 ft. Habitats include arid
deserts, grasslands and mixed
conifer forests.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Western Mastiff Bat
(Eumpos perotis californicus) -/-/SSC
Open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, annual and perennial
Low: Species known to
occur in the vicinity of the
site, and there is marginal
habitat onsite.

grasslands, palm oases,
chaparral, desert scrub, and
urban.

Reptiles
Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia silus) FT/SE/FP
Semi-arid grasslands, alkali
flats, and washes, utilize shrubs
and small mammal burrows.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Coast Horned Lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii) -/-/SSC
Occurs in valley foothill
hardwood, conifer and riparian
habitats, as well as in pine-
cypress, juniper and annual
grassland habitats. Elevational
range extends up to 4,000 ft
6,000 ft
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

California Glossy Snake
(Ariona elegans occidentalis) -/-/SSC
Most common in desert
habitats but also occur in
chaparral, sagebrush, valley-
foothill hardwood, pine-
juniper, and annual grass.

Elevation from below sea level
to 6,000 ft.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Northern California Legless
Lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
-/-/SSC
Typically found in coastal dune,
valley-foothill, chaparral, and
coastal scrub types. Elevation is
from near sea level to about
6,000 ft
None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

Western Pond Turtle
(Emys marmorata) -/-/SSC
Associated with permanent or
nearly permanent water in a
wide variety of habitat types.

Elevation range extends from
near sea level to 4,690 ft.

None: Species is not
known to occur on or in
the vicinity of the site and
there is no suitable
habitat for the species on
the site.

*Table 1 Listing Status Notes:

Federal: FE Federally listed Endangered State: SE State listed Endangered FT Federally listed Threatened ST State listed Threatened FC Federal Candidate Species SC State Candidate Species WL USFWS Watch list SR State Rare Species
BCC USFWS Brid of Conservation Concern SA State Special Animal MTBA Migritory Bird Treaty Act FP CDFW Fully Protected Species SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL CDFW Watch List

Table 2 - Potentially Occurring Listed Plant Species

Common/ Scientific Name
*Status
Fed/CA/CNP S/
Bloom
Period

Habitat Description
Habitat Present/
Absent
California Jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
FE/CE/1B.1
Feb-May
Chenopod scrub, Pinyon-Juniper
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland
Present
California Satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
-/-/2B.1
Sep-May
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (often
alkali), riparian scrub
Absent
Dwarf Downingia
(Downingia pusilla)
-/-/2B.2
Mar-May
Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Present
Greene’s Tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE/SR/1B.1
May-Jul
Vernal pools, hardpan,
tuffaceous alluvium, or claypan Absent
Hariy Orcutt Grass
(Orcuttia pilosa)
FE/CE/1B.1
May-Sep
Near streams, alluvial fans and
within annual grasslands/ 150 -
655 ft elevation
Absent
Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst
(Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
FE/CE/1B.1
Mar-Apr
Open grasslands and grasslands
at the margins of blue oak
woodland, foothills
Absent
Hoover’s Calcadenia
(Calycadenia hooveri)
-/-/1B.3
Jul-Sep
Cismontane woodland, Valley
and foothill grassland Absent
Madera Leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon serrulatus)
-/-/1B.2
Apr-May
Cismontane woodland, Lower
montane coniferous forest Absent

Munz’s Tidy-Tips
(Layia munzii)
-/-/1B.2
Mar-Apr
Chenopod scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland Absent
Palmate-Bracted Bird’s Beak
(Cordylanthus palmatus)
FE/SE 1B.1
May-Oct
Chenopod scrub, valley and
foothill grassland (5- 155m; 15-
510 ft)
Absent
Pincushion Navarretia
(Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii)
-/-/1B.1
Apr-May Vernal pools Absent
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
Grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT/CE 1B.1
Apr-Sep Vernal pools Absent
Sanford’s Arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
FT/CT 1B.2
May-Oct(Nov)
Marshes, ponds, ditches and
swamps (freshwater) Present
Spiny-Sepaled Button-Celery
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
FT/-/1B.2
Apr-Jun
Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools/330-4,000 ft
elevation
Absent
Succulent Owl’s Clover
(Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta)
-/-/1B.2
(Mar)Apr-May
Vernal pools
(50 – 750 m; 165-2460 ft) Absent

*Table 2 Listing Status Notes:

Federal: CRPR: California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank FE Federally listed
Endangered
CBR Considered but Rejected
FT Federally listed Threatened 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere FC Federal Candidate Species 2 Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but common elsewhere 4 Limited distribution (Watch-list)
State: CNPR Extensions
SE State listed Endangered 0.1 Seriously endangered in California ST State listed Threatened 0.2 Fairly endangered in California SC State Candidate Species 0.3 Not very endangered in California SR State Rare species

3.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Descriptions
Special-status species were evaluated based on historical and current data collected , habitat suitability, elevation, geographic range, soils, topography, surrounding land uses, and the proximity of occurrences, recorded in the CNDDB, IPaC and CNPS databases. Species identified in Section 2.1 with no potential for occurrence were excluded from further analysis.

Based on analysis of historical occurrences, suitable habitat, and proximity to the project site, special -status species for which there might be land use planning and regulatory implications include:

Wildlife Species with Potential for Occurrence

1. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

2. Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)

3. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

4. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitradoides exillis)

5. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

6. Western mastiff bat (Eumpos perotis californicus)

Plants Species with Potential for Occurrence

1. California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)

2. Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)

3. Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)

3.2.1. California Tiger Salamander (A. californiense)
The Central Valley District Population Segment of California tiger salamander was listed as Threatened on both the Federal and State level in 2004 (Species Profile 2022). Adults range in size from 6 to 9 inches long and have a dark background color with distinctive yellow spots.

Juveniles look much like adults but lack the yellow spots. Larval California tiger salamander is grayish green in color and has the appearance of tadpoles with obvious, external gills. The eggs are clear and typically laid singly or in groups of three or four in shallow ponds.

Endemic to California, this species is found in grasslands, oak savannah woodlands, edges of mixed woodland, lower elevations of coniferous forests, and in heavily grazed fields along the Central California Coast and within the Central San Joaquin Valley. They may breed in ditches where water is present for a long enough duration for eggs and larvae to metamorphose into adults. During the non-breeding season (approximately late May through early November), California tiger salamander live in small mammal burrows, typically those of ground squirrels and pocket gophers. They spend most of each year on land, emerging from refugia only

occasionally, usually on rainy nights, and have been observed on land within 1.24 miles from potential breeding pools.

A search of CNDDB records indicates the nearest and most recent occurrence of this species is 2.52 miles northwest from the Project site. One adult was found on the grounds of an apartment complex by a landscape maintenance crew in February , 2017. The animal was delivered to a local biologist, who relocated it. This individual is believed to be from a remnant population that has lost too much habitat to be viable.

3.2.2. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
Bell’s vireos are sexually monomorphic in plumage coloration throughout all seasons. Plumage color will vary by region. They are colored with a dull ash gray to green on their heads and upper parts of the body. Their underside is purely white, including under their wing coverts; on their breast sometimes a slight faint tint of brownish gray is evident. The sides under their wings are tinted with yellow. Bell’s vireos have distinguishing white spectacles and dark lores. Adults reach total lengths of 11 5-125 mm (4.5-4.9 in) and weigh around 7 -10g (0.25-0.35 oz). Their wingspan averages about 18 centimeters (7 inches). Size and weight are identical for both females and males.

In the breeding season, Bell's vireos can be found in riparian habitats with d iverse vegetation and in dense early successional habitats. Shrubs, trees, and brushy fields are also suitable locations for this species. Plant communities that attract them are willow -cottonwood forests, oak woodlands, shrubby thickets, and dry washes. During the migration period, Bell's vireos make use of coastal scrub, woodland, and riparian habitats. Winter habitats are very similar to breeding habitats, but they will aim to distribute away from water ways during their winter period. Bell's vireos are commonly absent in elevations above 1300 meters (4,265 feet) in the United States.

Least Bell’s vireo is not likely to occur in the vicinity of the project site. From the data records search, the nearest and most recent occurrence of this species wa s 8.04 miles northeast from the Project site in 1906. Found in a willow dominated riparian area, this species is thought to be possibly extirpated in the local area.

3.2.2. Fresno Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys. nitradoides exillis) This subspecies is listed as Enda ngered at the Federal and State level. The Fresno kangaroo rat is one of three subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat and is limited in distribution to the flat floor of the San Joaquin Valley, from Merced County to Kern County, California. They are small kangaroo rats with total body length ranging from 211-253 mm (8.3 -10 in), and tail length ranging from 120-152 mm (4.7 – 6 in). The lower incisors are rounded and grooved on the front face. Other cranial features include nasal bones projecting be yond the incisors and the auditory bullae being greatly enlarged.

The preferred Fresno kangaroo rat habitat is elevated grassy patches on alkali plains or in grassy terrain with scattered alkali patches. Their burrows may consist of one vertical entrance and several slanting ones, approximately 5 cm (2 in) diameter. Ex cess side tunnels allow the rat to escape if threatened by a predator. Rapid urbanization, and agricultural developments have extirpated this species from much of its historical range.

Suitable habitat for this species is poor on the project site due to the level of ground disturbance and urbanization in the area. A search of CNDDB records indicated the nearest occurrence of this species is 0. 9 miles in 1891, and the species is believed to be extirpated in parts of its home range in Fresno County.

3.2.3. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Swainson’s hawk is listed as Threatened on the State level. This species favor s open habitat for foraging such as agricultural fields, pastures, and row crops. They nest in scattered stands of eucalyptus, willow, oak, cottonwood, and conifers with a preference for the tallest tree in the area. On occasion, Swainson’s hawk will nest on a power pole or transmission tower.

Swainson’s hawk returns to the Central Valley for the breeding season around February. They return later than other birds. Therefore, they typically utilize the same nests for generations or have several nests nearby. Nests are constructed quickly with loose bundles of sticks and debris items. The incubation period is approximately 35 days and the nesting period is 17 to 22 days.

The breeding season for this species begins in March and ends in September.

Although Swainson’s hawk are known to occur in the Fresno area, there were no known occurrences of this species in the CNDDB records within the vicinity of the project site. During the field survey, no signs of Swainson’s hawk were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas. Habitat for this species is marginal due to urbanization of the area.

3.2.4. Pallid Bat (Antrozous. pallidus)
Pallid bat is a State listed Species of Special Concern, and very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. Owl and snakes are known predators. They are of a large size, have large eyes, large ears, light tan coloration, a pig -like snout, and a distinctive skunk- like odor (Brylski et al. 1998). Although the light tan color varies from very light tan similar to a blonde, to tan depending on the location; with lighter colors in hotter regions such as desert, and darker colors in cooler regions such as the coast and the northern areas of California. Found throughout the entire State of California yearlong. They are social with 95% of pallid bats roost in groups of 20 or more ranging to 162. Pallid bat are known to roost with a number of other bats such as Myotis spp. Group size is important for metabolic economy and growth of the young. The young occupy the center of clusters.

Utilizes a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests from seal level up through mixed conifer forests. Most common in lower elevations up to 2,440 meters (8,000 feet) (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983, Hall 1981) with open, dry habitats and rocky areas for roosting. Prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats for foraging. Day roosts are in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings. Roost must protect bats from hi gh temperatures. Bats move deeper in cover if temperatures rise. Night roost may be in more open sites such as porches and open buildings.

Pallid bat are nocturnal and hibernates. They emerge late around 30 to 60 minutes after sunset with a major activity peak 90 to 190 minutes after sunset, and a second peak shortly before dawn. They can forage 0.5 to 2.5 kilometers (1 to 3 miles) from day roost and are capable of homing from distances of a few miles, but not further. They forage for shorter periods in autumn with very little to no activity if temperatures fall below 2°C (35°F). Pallid bat undergo shallow torpor daily, hibernating in winter near the summer day roost (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). They disperse after the breeding season.

Maternity colonies form in early April and may have a dozen to 100 individuals. Males may roost separately or in the nursery colony. Pallid bat mate from late October to February.

Fertilization is delayed and gestation is between 53 to 71 days. Pups are born from April to July.

The litter size is between 1 and 3 with females reproducing for the first time having 1. Pups are weaned in 7 week and can be observed flying in July and August. Females only nurse their own young. Females and juveniles forage together after weaning. Fe males mate during their first autumn and males mate in their second.

No signs of pallid bat were observed within the Project Site. However, this species is adaptable to an urban environment. A search of CNDDB records indicates the nearest and most recent occurrence of pallid bat is 3.47 miles southeast from the Project site in 1909.

3.2.5. Western Mastiff Bat (Eumpos perotis californicus) Western mastiff bat is a State listed Species of Special Concern. This species has a brown fur body length 5.5 to 7.5 inches, a wingspan of over 22 inches, and body mass range from 2.1 to 2.5 ounces. Western mastiff bat is the largest native bat in the United States. Thus such morphology allows for rapid, sustained flight but limits maneuverability. This manner of flight is adaptive to flying in open habitats.

Western mastiff bat has yearlong nocturnal activity. They generally go into daily torpor from December through February but usually resumes activity each night to feed, except when temperatures drop below 5°C (41°F). Nocturnal foraging range may exceed 15 miles from roost sites. Western mastiff bat rarely uses night roost and has an exceptionally long foraging period, up to 6 -7 hours per night. Their echolocationary squeaks can be heard from up to 980 feet away. They are non-migratory with no known home range and no known territory. They are known to roost along or in small colonies with fewer than 100 bats, and commonly shares roost with other large bats such as Eptesicus fuscus, Antrozous pallidus, and Tadarida brasiliensis.

Western mastiff bats can be found in many open, semi -arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban. Roosts are often found in crevic es in cliff faces, buildings, trees and tunnels. Suitable habitat for western mastiff bat consists of extensive open areas with abundant roost locations provided by crevices in rock outcrops and buildings. Crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees, an d tunnels are required for roosting. When roosting in rock crevices, this species needs vertical faces to drop off to take flight.

Nursery roosts are tight rock crevices at least 35 inches deep and 2 inches wide. Mating season begins in early spring (March), the gestation period is unknown. Parturition occurs from early April through August or September. One young is produced per female bat per year.

During the field survey, there were no signs of western mastiff bat was observed within the Project Site. Ho wever, this species is adaptable to an urban environment . A search of CNDDB records indicates the nearest and most recent occurrence of western mastiff bat is 1.53 miles southwest from the Project site in 1991. A specimen was collected near the intersection of Brawley Ave. and Belmont Ave.

3.2 Special-Status Plant Species Descriptions

3.2.1. California Jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) California jewelflower is listed as Endangered on the Federal level and Endangered on the State level. It is an annual herb in the mustard family, growing to approximately 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall, with white and maroon flowers. This is found only in the south San Joaquin valley and adjacent coastal ranges. California jewelflower has a blooming period between March and May.

3.2.2. Dwarf Downingia (Downingia pusilla)
Dwarf downingia is moderately threatened in California. It grows in wet areas such as ditches and vernal pools. Distinguishable from the other downingias by its smaller flowers, reaching 4 milli meters (0.2 inches) in width at maximum. It grows erect stems with few pointed leaves. The tiny tubular flower is white or blue, with yellow spots near the mouth of the tube. The fruit is a capsule two or three centimeters long.

3.2.3. Sanford’s Arrowhead (Sagittaria. sanfordii)
Sanford's arrowhead is an aquatic perennial herb up to 130 cm (51 in) tall, growing from a spherical tuber. The leaves are very often submerged, variable in shape, usually long and strap-shaped. Leaves may grow up to 25 cm (9.8 in) long from the underwater stem. The plant is monoecious, with individuals bearing both male and female flowers. The inflorescence

which rises above the surface of the water is a raceme made up of several whorls of flowers, the lowest node bearing female flowers and upper nodes bearing male flowers. The flower is up to 3. 5 cm (1.4 in) wide with white petals. The male flowers have rings of stamens at the centers. Female flowers each have a spherical cluster of pistils which develops into a head of tiny fruits.

Sanford's Arrowhead has a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B.2, fairly endangered in California and elsewhere. The nearest occurrence of this species was observed in 2011, approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the Project site . The nearest observation of Sanford's arrowhead was observed near Ashlan and Maroa Avenue, Fresno, in 1958. However, the area was surveyed again in 1980 and no Sanford’s arrowhead were found.

4. Habitat Assessment Results
On March 15, 2023, a Soar Environmental biologist conducted a Habitat Assessments of the Project Site. The purpose of the Habitat Assessment was to search for suitable habitats or the presence of special -status species that have historically been observed within or surrounding the Project Site. Survey efforts emphasized the search for special-status species with moderate to high potential for occurrence based on Section 2.1 of this report. In regard to the subject property, these species include; California tiger salamander, least Bell’s vireo, Swainson’s hawk, Fresno kangaroo rat, Pallid bat, western mastiff bat, California jewelflower, Dwarf downingia, and Sanford’s arrowhead. No special -status species were observed during the site visit and suitable habitat for any of the aforementioned species is poor or absent due to the level of disturbance and urbanization in the area.

5. Findings
Although there are some suitable nesting trees, the Project Site is highly disturbed, in a high traffic area adjacent to the highway. This would not preclude bird species from nesting in the trees, however suitable nesting habitat is marginal due to the level of disturbance in the area. Swainson’s hawk are known to occur in the Fresno area, however there were no known occurrences of this species in the CNDDB records within the vicinity of the project site.

During the field survey, no signs of Swainson’s hawk were observed in the Project footprint or surrounding areas. Habitat for this species is marginal due to urbanization of the area.

Least Bell’s vireo is not likely to occur in the vicinity of the project site. From the data records search, the nearest and most recent occurrence of this species was 8.04 miles northeast from the Project site in 1906. Found in a willow dominated riparian area, this species is thought to be possibly extirpated in the local area.

There were puddles of water from stormwater runoff, and apparent water damage observed within the Project Site, however the project site does not harbor any suitable habitat for the aquatic species mentioned in this report. There are no suitable breeding ponds for California tiger salamander in the vicinity of the P roject Site. California tiger salamander typically inhabits shallow vernal pools that contain standing water for at least 10 continuous weeks in the year. Their physical development is dependent on annual shrinkage of the ponded water. This species also utilizes small mammal burrows for refugia during the dry season which were not present on the Project Site. A search of CNDDB records indicates the nearest and most recent occurrence of this species is 2.52 miles northwest from the Project site. One adult was found on the grounds of an apartment complex by a landscape maintenance crew in February 2017. The animal was delivered to a local biologist, who relocated it. This individual is believed to be from a remnant population that has lost too much habitat to be viable.

The most recent occurrence of Fresno kangaroo rat is 0.96 miles north from the Project Site in 1898. Suitable habitat for this species is not present within the Project Site due to the level of ground disturbance and urbanizati on in the area , and lack of burrowing habitat.

Fresno kangaroo rat is presumed extirpated in parts of its home range in Fresno County, and the proposed Project is not likely to have any negative impacts on the species.

There were no signs of western mastiff bat or pallid bat observed in the vicinity of the Project Site. However, this species is adaptable to an urban environment. A search of CNDDB records indicates the nearest and most recent occurrence of western mastiff bat is 1.53 miles southwest from the Project site in 1991. A specimen was collected near the intersection of Brawley Ave. and Belmont Ave.

There were no signs of bat occupancy observed within the Project Site. However, this species is adaptable to an urban environment. The nearest and most recent occurrence of western mastiff bat is 1.53 miles southwest from the Project site in 1991, and the most recent occurrence of pallid bat is 3.47 miles from the Project site in 1909 . Both species are still presumed extent in the Fresno area, however the proposed project is not likely to have any adverse effect on These bats species.

Although the habitat assessment was conducted outside of the blooming period f or most special status plant species identified in this repor t, the project site is highly urbanized and mostly paved, leaving little ground cover adequate for the identified special status plant species.

7. Recommendations
No listed species were observed during the Habitat Assessment of the Project Site, and no suitable habitat features, or conditions were observed that would be conducive for any of the aforementioned species. The proposed development of this parcel is unlikely to adversely affect any special-status species. Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. recommends that if any special status species are observed during construction activities, work be stopped immediately and CDFW is contacted.

8. Study Limitations
This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies and contains all the limitations inherent in these methodologies. This Report documents Project Site conditions observed during field reconnaissance and do es not apply to future conditions. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this Report.

Works Cited
Audubon Guide to North American Birds. (2023). https://www.audubon.org

Bauder, E., Kreager, D. A., McMillan, S.C. (Sept. 1998). Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Recovery-Planning/Vernal-Pool/

Brown, N. 1996. "Swainson's hawk profile" (On-line). Accessed November 29, 1999. http://arnica.csustan.edu/esrpp/swainson.htm.

Calflora. (2023). Taxon Report. Retrieved from https://www.calflora.org

California Diversity Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife RareFind. Retrieved from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind

California Native Plant Society. CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. https://rareplants.cnps.org

CDFW. (2023). California’s Vernal Pools. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools

CDFW. (March 20, 2018). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Retrieved from

Center for Biological Diversity. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org

eBird Database, Cornell University Lab of Ornithology. (2023). Retrieved from https://ebird.org

Gary M. Fellers and Kathleen L. Freel. A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians.

Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service - Western Region National Biological Service - Cooperative Park Studies Unit The University of California - Davis, California. May 1995

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2023. “Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).”

Stephen Ward McCabe. University of California, Berkeley. The Jepson Herbarium. Vascular Plants of California. Thiede 2003 in Eggli (ed.) Illus Handbook Succulent Pls 6 (Crassulaceae):85--103. Springer. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora

Stutchbury, B., J. Hill III, P. Krame, S. Rush, S. Tarof. 2009. Sex And Age-Specific Annual Survival In A Neotropical Migratory Songbird, The Purple Martin (Progne Subis). The Auk, 126/2: "278-287".

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2023). Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov

USFWS. (Sept. 2007). Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1160.pdf

Web: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelhead-trout.html

Brylski, P. V., Collins, P. W., Pierson, E. D., Rainey, W. E., & Kucera, T. E. (1998). Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. In B. C. Bolster (Ed.), https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/Documents/Default.aspx (MSSC-1998 Final with maps).

California Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84476 Geluso, K. N. 1978. Urine concentrating ability and renal structure of insectivorous bats. J.

Mammal. 59:312-323.

Hermanson, J. W., and T. J. O'Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species No. 213:1-

8. Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1976. Social effects of roosting on the metabolism of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). J. Mammal. 57:656-663.

Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1978. Position of immatures in pallid bat clusters: a case of reciprocal altruism? J. Mammal. 59:193-195.

Berna, H. J. 1990. Seven bat species from the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona with a new record of Dalquest, W.W. 1946. The daytime retreat of a California mastiff bat. J. Mamm. 27: 86-88.

Easterla, D, A. 1965. The spotted bat in Utah. J. Mamm, 46(4): 665-668.

Easterla, D. A. 1973. Ecology of the 18 species of Chiroptera at Big Bend National Park, Texas.

Easterla, P. and D.A. Easterla. 1974. Rare glimpse of new-born bats. Smithsonian 5(7):104- 107.

Endangered Species.

Euderma maculatum. Southwest. Nat. 35:354-356.

Findley, J. S., and C. Jones. 1965, Comments on spotted bats. J. Mamm. 46(4): 679-680.

Geluso, K. N. 1978. Urine concentrating ability and renal structure of insectivorous bats.

Grinnell, J. 1910. A second record of the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) for California.

Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 5(10):317-320.

Grinnell, J. 1910. A second record of the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) for California.

Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., 5(10):317-320.

J. Mammal. 59:312-323.

Krutzsch, P.H. 1955. Observations on the California mastiff bat. J. Mamm. 36: 407-414.

Luce, R. J., & Keinath, D. (2007). Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): A Technical Conservation Assessment. In M. Bogan, M. O’Farrell, & K. Navo (Eds.), www.fs.usda.gov (No. stelprdb5181916). United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181916.pdf Nevada Bat Working Group. 2002. Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, NV.

Northwest Missouri State Coll. Stud. 33: 1-165.

O’Farrell, M. J. 1981. Status Report: Euderma maculatum (J.A. Allen). USFWS, Office of Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 12: 1-153.

Vaughan, T. 1959. Functional morphology of three bats: Eumops, Myotis, Macrotus. Univ.

Kansas.

Watkins, L.C. 1977. Euderma maculatum. Mammalian Species 77:1-4.

Appendix A
Site Visit Photos

Project Site Overview of Project Site

Photo 1 – Main entrance and Eastern Boundary of Trailer Park (View South)

Photo 2 – Southwest Inside Corner of Trailer Park (View Southwest)

Photo 3 – Northeastern Boundary of Trailer Park (View West)

Photo 4 – Southern Boundary of Trailer Park (View West)

Photo 5 – Main Road Through Middle of Trailer Park (View West)

Photo 6 – Main Road Through Middle of Trailer Park (View East)

Photo 7 – Adjacent Property South of the Trailer Park (Veiw South)

Photo 8 – Vacant Lot East of Trailer Park (View South)

Photo 9 – Inside Western Boundary of Trailer Park (View North)

Photo 10 – Water Supply Main

Photo 11 – Water Well (On Private Residence)

Photo12 – Well Pump System (Along Western Wall)

Photo 13 – Trailer Sunk from Flooding

Photo 14 – Sink Hole Filled

Photo 15 – Main Water Valve

Appendix B
California Natural Diversity Database

Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
black-crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
ABNGA11010
None
None
G5
S4
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017
None
None
G5T2
S2
SSC
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia
ABPAT02011
None
None
G5T4Q
S4
WL
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020
None
None
G3
S3
2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181
Threatened
Threatened
G2G3T3
S3
WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100
None
None
G3G4
S4
SSC
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480
None
Candidate
Endangered
G2
S2
double-crested cormorant
Nannopterum auritum
ABNFD01020
None
None
G5
S4
WL
dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
PDCAM060C0
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
AMAFD03151
Endangered
Endangered
G3TH
SH
great egret
Ardea alba
ABNGA04040
None
None
G5
S4
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
CTT61420CA
None
None
G2
S2.2
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.1
hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
PMPOA4G040
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Query Criteria:

Quad IS (Fresno North (3611977) OR Malaga (3611966) OR Clovis (3611976) OR Friant (3611986) OR Kearney Park (3611968) OR Gregg (3611988) OR Fresno South (3611967) OR Herndon (3611978) OR Lanes Bridge (3611987)) Report Printed on Friday, February 17, 2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

Fresno City CouncilJanuary 15, 2026

Fresno City Council
January 15, 2026