ALL CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE
TURNED OFF IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2024
Meeting Held in the Council Chambers
845 "G" Street, Reedley, California
www.reedley.ca.gov
The Council Chambers are accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, including auxiliary aids or to request translation services, should be made 48 hours prior to the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at 637-4200 ext. 212.
Any document that is a public record and provided to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours. In addition, such documents may be posted on the City's website.
Unless otherwise required by law to be accepted by the City at or prior to a Council meeting or hearing, no documents shall be accepted for Council review unless they are first submitted to the City Clerk by the close of business one day prior to said Council meeting/hearing at which the Council will consider the item to which the documents relate, pursuant to the adopted City Council Protocols.
The meeting will be held in person and may be observed remotely via Zoom or at:
http://www.reedley.com/livestream.php.
Public comment may be made in person or submitted in writing. Members of the public who wish to provide written comments are encouraged to submit their comments to the City Clerk at [email protected] by the close of business one day prior to the start of the meeting to ensure that the comments will be available to the City Council. Please indicate the agenda item number to which the comment pertains. Written comments that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the meeting. A copy of any written comment will be provided to the City Council at the meeting. Please note that written comments received will not be read aloud during the meeting, but will be included with the meeting minutes.
Matthew Tuttle, Mayor Pro Tern
Mary Fast, Council Member
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Anita Betancourt, Mayor
Suzanne Byers, Council Member
Scott Friesen, Council Member
INVOCATION- Pastor Virgil Miller, Christ Lutheran Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL-ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS
PRESENTATION
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE OFFICER- POLICE DEPARTMENT
2. NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION MONTH
3. SMITH'S FERRY HISTORICAL LANDMARK PRESENTATION
PUBLIC COMMENT - Provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items of interest to the public within the Council's jurisdiction and which are not already on the agenda this evening. It is the policy of the Council not to answer questions impromptu. Concerns or complaints will be referred to the City Manager's office. Speakers should limit their comments to not more than three (3) minutes. No more than ten (1 OJ minutes per issue will be allowed. For items which are on the agenda this evening, members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council as each item is brought up for discussion.
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
CONSENT AGENDA items are considered routine and a recommended action for each item is included, and will be voted upon as one item. If a Councilmember has questions, requests additional information, or wishes to comment on an item, the vote should not be taken until after questions have been addressed or comments made, and the public has had an opportunity to comment on the Consent Agenda items. If a Councilmember wishes to have an item considered individually or change the recommended action, then the item should be removed and acted upon as a separate item. A Councilmember's vote in favor of the Consent Agenda is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items.
CONSENT AGENDA (Item 4-7)
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2023 - (City Clerk)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
5. APPROVAL OF EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COUNCIL MEMBER FAST- (Administrative Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
6. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INVESTMENT
FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSUL TING AGREEMENT WITH BURNHAM
GIBSON WEAL TH ADVISORS, LLC FOR ONGOING ADMINISTRATION SERVICES OF THE CITY'S DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS-(Administrative Services) Staff Recommendation: Approve
7. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IWORQ SYSTEMS, INC. FOR ONGOING
AUTOMATED SOLAR PERMITTING AND RELATED PAYMENT PROCESSING SERVICES -(Administrative Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
2 WORKSHOP
8. UPDATE FROM REEDLEY LITTLE LEAGUE
PUBLIC HEARING
9. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX TWO-STORY
TOWNHOME DUPLEXES SITUATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH FRANKWOOD AVENUE AND WEST LILAC AVENUE (APNs 365-220-80 & 365- 220-81)
A. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-055, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 2023-16, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2023, PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021- 04, REZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-07, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-056, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-04
C. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTRODUCTION AND FIRST
READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2023-007, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING REZONE
APPLICATION NO. 2021-07 AND AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY
D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-057, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
Report, discussion and/or other Council action to approve, modify, and/or take other action as appropriate. - (Community Development)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
10.CONSIDER ACTION RELATED TO ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ANNEXATION NO. 21) TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
A. RESOLUTION 2024-001, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF REEDLEY ANNEXING OF TERRITORY TO A COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX,
AND SUBMITTING LEVY OF TAX TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 21
B. RESOLUTION 2024-002, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF REEDLEY DECLARING RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ANNEXATION 3 ELECTION DETERMINING VALIDITY OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, AND
DIRECTING RECORDING OF AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 21
Report, discussion and/or other Council action to approve, modify, and/or take other action as appropriate. - (Administrative Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
COUNCIL REPORTS
11. BRIEF REPORT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON CITY RELATED ACTIVITIES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE BROWN ACT AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
STAFF REPORTS
12. UPDATES AND/OR REPORTS BY CITY MANAGER AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS.
ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the Jaws of the State of California that the foregoing revised agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 4th day of January 2024. . -~ R~ ood, City Clerk
Dates to Remember:
January 23, 2024-Regular Meeting
February 13, 2024-Regular Meeting
4 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING -December 12, 2023
A complete audio record of the minutes is available at www.reedley.ca.gov The meeting of Reedley City Council called to order by Mayor Betancourt at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 845 "G" Street, Reedley, California.
INVOCATION - Associate Pastor Len Kinzel, Redeemers Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Friesen.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present:
Absent:
Suzanne Byers, Mary Fast, Scott Friesen, Matthew Tuttle, Anita Betancourt None.
AGENDA APPROVAL - ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS
Council Member Byers motioned, Council Member Friesen seconded to accept and approve agenda.
Motion unanimously carried.
PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION FROM REEDLEY' S RIVER CITY THEATER COMPANY River City Theater Company provided an update regarding past performances and future plans.
2. PRESENTATION TO CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER JESAL YN HARPER City Manager, Council and Staff thanked Ms. Harper for her hard work and dedication to Reedley.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
CONSENT AGENDA (Item 3-7)
Council Member Fast moved, Council Member Byers seconded to accept, approve and adopt all items listed under the CONSENT AGENDA.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2023 2023 - Approved
4. RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION OF COMPANION CLAIMS- FATIMA PEREZ, FREDY PEREZGARCIA, GRIZELDA FLORES-BERNADIO AND KIMBERLY PEREZ -Approved
5. APPROVE A RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION TO AWARD COMMUNITY RECREATION GRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $350 TO EACH OF THE FOUR QUALIFYING APPLICANTS -Approved
6. APPROVE PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF REEDLEY AND THE FRESNO COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT - Approved
7. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-086 AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF INDIVIDUAL GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR ALL CALRECYCLE GRANT PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE CITY OF REEDLEY IS ELIGIBLE -Approved
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING -December 12, 2023
WORKSHOP
8. UPDATE ON CITY HALL FACILITIES PLANNING
City Manager Nicole Zieba explained that the City of Reedley started to explore options for new facilities because all existing facilities are at capacity.
Pete Perez inquired about the square footage the city was looking at expanding and wanted to make sure that all options were being explored.
RECEIVE INFORMATION & REPORTS
These items are formal transmittals of information to the Reedley City Council. They are not voted upon by the Reedley City Council. Members of the public who have questions on these items are suggested to call City staff members during regular business hours.
9. REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21 , 2023
10. RECEIVE, REVIEW AND FILE THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
COUNCIL REPORTS
11 . BRIEF REPORT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON CITY RELATED ACTIVITIES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE BROWN ACT AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Council Member Friesen:
• Discussed a luncheon he attended
Council Member Fast:
• Mentioned the event that Assemblyman Devon Mathis hosted which she attended • Shared about the Good Morning Reedley event
• Attended a Council of Governments meeting and provided a brief update Council Member Byers:
• Discussed Mid Valley lunch she attended
Council Member Tuttle:
• Shared about the annual Wreaths Across America event
Mayor Betancourt:
• Thanked staff for the nice Senior luncheon event
STAFF REPORTS
12. UPDATES AND/OR REPORTS BY CITY MANAGER AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS.
City Manager Nicole Zieba:
• Discussed the upcoming Council meeting schedule
• Mentioned the Council of Governments meeting
CLOSED SESSION
13. Government Code Section 54956.8
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 1710 Ninth St. Reedley, CA 93654
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Assistant City Manager Negotiating Parties: Central CA Commercial Advisory & Brokerage Services Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions
2 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING -December 12, 2023
14. Government Code Section 54956.8
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 936 G St. Reedley, CA 93654
Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Assistant City Manager Negotiating Parties: PI Properties NO 140 LLC
Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions
15. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(l)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Steve Bradley v. City of Reedley, Fresno County Superior Court Case No.23CECG04463
16. Government Code Section 54956.9
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (d)(2) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code One potential case
Mayor Betancourt adjourned to a CLOSED SESSION at 8:24 p.m.
Meeting reconvened to OPEN SESSION at 9: 13 p.m.
City Attorney, Laurie Avedisian-Favini stated there was no reportable action from closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Betancourt adjourned the regular meeting at 9: 13 p.m.
Mayor Anita Betancourt
ATTEST:
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
DATE: January 9, 2024
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
[8J Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D ClosedSession
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: 5 ----
TITLE: APPROVAL OF EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COUNCILMEMBER FAST SUBMITTED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manager
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Request the City Council approve a mileage expense reimbursement request from Councilmember Fast for miles driven for official City business.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A mileage reimbursement was submitted on December 5, 2023, for miles driven for official City business.
Upon review, several of the dates fall outside of the 30-calendar day submission requirement as set forth in Section 5 of the Expense Reimbursement and Travel/Conference Policy for Elected and Appointed Legislative Body Officials that was adopted in December 2018. The dates range from June 29, 2023 to November 30, 2023. Out of the 496 miles driven for City business during this time period, 438 miles, representing $286.89 at the 2023 IRS mileage rate, in addition to a parking fee of $10.00, fall outside of the 30-day requirement.
Section 5 of the policy states: "Officials must submit their expense reports within thirty (30) calendar days of an expense being incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each expense. Restaurant receipts, in addition to any credit card receipts, are also part of the necessary documentation. Any expenses submitted after 30 days of being incurred will be required to be approved by a majority of the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Expenses not approved by the majority of Council shall be borne by the official who incurred the expense. "
FISCAL IMPACT
No new appropriations are needed for this reimbursement as mileage reimbursements for elected officials are included in the annual City budget.
ATTACHMENT
City of Reedley Councilmember Mileage Log dated December 5, 2023 City of Reedley Mileage Log
Employee: MARY FAST ,,-)~@,~ 4P Date:12.5.2023.
Date Destination
6.29.2023 I Fresno Council of Govt Fresno
7.19.2023 I Fresno Co Farm Bureau
7.27.2023 I Fresno Council of Govt Fresno
8.31.2023 I Fresno Council of Govt Fresno
9.20.2023 I Fresno Co Farm Bureau
9.28.2023 I Fresno Council of Govt Fresno
10.5.2023 I Les Travali home 62_45 Holbrook Ave
10.7.2023 I Reedley Airport
10.18.2023 I Fresno Co Farm Bureau
10.18.2023
10.18.2023
10.26.2023
11.30.2023 I Fresno Council of Govt Fresno
10.18.23 Department Head Approval
/ Purpose of Trip
. FCQG ,,board meeting
Upper Kings Water Mng Auth Board meeting
FCOG board meeting .
cancelled meeting
Upper Kings Water Mng Auth Board meeting
FCOG board meeting
Boys and Girls Club fundraiser
Airport BBQ Open House
Upper Kings Water Mng Auth Board meeting
FCOG board meeting
TOTAL MILES
TOTAL Parking Fees
Month: Jun-Nov 2023
i l Total Miles
58 ,
62 58
62 58
8 12
62 :
58 58
i I
496 1
I
I
$ 10.00
DATE: January 9, 2024
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
~ Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
D Receive/Review
ITEM NO: ----
TITLE: APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSUL TING AGREEMENT
WITH BURNHAM GIBSON WEAL TH ADVISORS, LLC FOR ONGOING
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES OF THE CITY'S DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS
SUBMITTED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manage
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an Investment Fiduciary & Retirement Plan Consulting Agreement with Burnham Gibson Wealth Advisors, LLC, for ongoing administration services of the City's existing deferred compensation plans. There is no cost to the City for this service.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has maintained a deferred compensation benefit for many years that allowed full-time employees, at their sole cost, to make pre-tax contributions from their paychecks to personal investment accounts held with vendors of the City's choosing . In April 2022, the City Council authorized a matching plan for all full-time employees, effective July 1, 2022, for employee contributions to be matched up to
2.0% base wages into the deferred compensation plan , with a five-year vesting requirement. Currently, 50 full-time employees are taking advantage of this valuable benefit, up from 13 employees previously.
The City has traditionally contracted and interacted directly with deferred compensation plan providers, with staff only doing limited plan administration . The complexity and regulations surrounding deferred compensation plans does not allow staff to evaluate the quality of the plans , performance of the underlying investment funds , or fees paid by participants. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the City does not have a way to educate employees on recommended ways to maximize the benefit for retirement savings.
Under the attached agreement, Burnham Gibson Wealth Advisors, LLC (Burnam Gibson) would now fill this role , and as the City's agent, assist in ensuring that employees are getting the best benefit possible and the education to have confidence in their investment choices. A particularly vexing issue for smaller plans in the Central Valley region is ensuring that fees paid by participants are competitive, followed by the availability of quality education resources. Locally , Burnam Gibson works with Westlands Water District and the cities of Hanford, Kingsburg and Lemoore.
Requests for Proposal
Similar to the City's existing practice of obtaining quotes for its medical plans, Burnam Gibson will periodically take the City's deferred compensation plan(s) to the 'market' to survey what other providers are offering, ensuring that plan participants are getting the best services available for the lowest possible cost. This process may result in moving to a new provider if the offerings of a different vendor are significantly better.
Quarterly Investment Monitoring
Every deferred compensation vendor has their own mix of available investment options for different asset types, each carrying unique characteristics and fees. Available investments are chosen by the employer and plan participants (employees) then choose which of the available investments they will make contributions to. Without a financial planning background, these options are difficult for most employees to properly consider; thus, many default to a target retirement date retirement fund, which may not be the best available solution. Burnam Gibson will evaluate the performance of every fund that is in the City's plan, and recommend changes to plan offerings if other funds offered by the vendor are a better value.
Education
Unlike California Public Employees' Retirement System, which chooses and manages investments on behalf of an employee, the deferred compensation benefit requires employees to choose and monitor their own investments within the options supplied by the employer. This is a daunting task to most, and the City has historically been unable to provide quality education opportunities for employees to gain the knowledge necessary to effectively manage their own portfolio. Staff have repeatedly requested in person training to engage with employees; however, the City's primary provider has been unable to fulfill this request. As part of Burnam Gibson's services, any deferred compensation benefit provider will be required to provide training to employees, or, at minimum, Burnam Gibson will provide this training as requested. The goal is to offer 1-2 specialized training events annually.
BACKGROUND
Deferred compensation matching is a common benefit amongst public agencies in California, and a proven tool for employee recruitment and retention, with most surrounding cities to Reedley having a program in place. Matching plans have been increasing since the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2012, which took effect in January 2013, which limits pension benefits. While PEPRA will benefit public agencies financially over the long-term, employees hired under the new retirement formulas will not have the opportunity to build the same level of retirement security. Currently, 66% of active full-time City employees are covered under PEPRA retirement plans, and this percentage grows with each passing year. As an example, this percentage was 61 % in April 2022.
The City currently offers 457(b) deferred compensation plans through two providers, MissionSquare Retirement (formerly ICMA-RC) and Nationwide, where eligible full-time employees may make voluntary pre-tax contributions to a defined contribution retirement plan and have them matched by the City, up to 2.0% base wages with a five-year vesting requirement. These plans are in addition to and separate from defined benefit pension plans from the California Public Employees' Retirement System .
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City for this service, as all plan administration costs are paid as a percentage of the value of the assets under management.
ATTACHMENTS
Investment Fiduciary & Retirement Plan Consulting Agreement
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT NAME OF PLAN{S): City of Reedley
NAME OF EMPLOYER/PLAN SPONSOR: City of Reedley
This Investment Fiduciary & Retirement Plan Consulting Agreement (this "Agreement") is made by and between Burnham Gibson Wealth Advisors, LLC ("Adviser") and the Employer/Plan Sponsor ("Sponsor") of the above-referenced retirement plan for the benefit of the Plan further described in the attached profile at Appendix A (the "Plan"). The effective date of this Agreement is the date accepted by an officer of Adviser signing below ("Effective Date"). All appendices attached to this Agreement are herein incorporated as of the Effective Date.
Sponsor is the sponsor of and maintains a trust (the "Trust") under that [NAME OF TRUST AGREEMENT] (the "Trust Agreement") to fund the Plan, which is subject to the following: (check all that apply) Coverage under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"): D Yes i:g) No Investment Direction Provided By: D Trustee(s) [g] Participants Established/Maintained as a Multiple Employer Plan ("MEP"}: D Yes i:g) No
1. SERVICES
Adviser will provide the Fiduciary Services and / or Consulting Services (both as defined below) selected below by Sponsor (collectively, the "Services") to assist Sponsor in meeting its requirements to prudently administer and manage the Plan and, if applicable, to educate the Plan's participants (the "Participants") to help them maximize their benefits through the Plan.
When providing any Nondiscretionary Fiduciary Services, as selected below by Sponsor, Adviser will solely be making recommendations to Sponsor, and Sponsor retains full discretionary authority or control over assets of the Plan. When providing any Discretionary Fiduciary Services, Adviser will exercise discretionary authority over the Plan assets covered under each Discretionary Fiduciary Service selected below by Sponsor.
Adviser will provide the following investment fiduciary services (the "Fiduciary Services"): (check all that apply) INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES: PLAN-LEVEL (Select Services in Only One Column} 3(21) Nondiscretionary Fiduciary Services
i:g)INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT {IPS):
Advisor will review with Sponsor the investment objectives, risk tolerance and goals of the Plan. If the Plan does not have · an investment policy statement ("IPS"), Advisor will provide recommendations to Sponsor to assist with establishing an IPS. If the Plan has an existing IPS, Advisor will review it for consistency with the Plan's objectives . If the IPS does not represent the objectives of the Plan, Advisor will recommend to Sponsor revisions to align the IPS with the Plan's objectives. ~INVESTMENT ADVICE:
Based on the Plan's IPS, Advisor will review the investment options available to the Plan and will make recommendations to assist Sponsor with selecting investments that meet the I PS criteria. Once Sponsor selects the investment(s), Advisor will, on a periodic basis and/or upon reasonable request, provide reports and information to assist Sponsor with monitoring the investment(s). If the IPS criteria require any investment(s) to be replaced, Advisor will provide recommendations to assist Sponsor with replacing the investment(s).
•
3{38) Discretionary Fiduciary Services
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
[IPS attached hereto must be accepted prior to
commencement of Discretionary Services]
0 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT:
Advisor will review with Sponsor the investment objectives, risk tolerance and goals of the Plan and provide to Sponsor an IPS that contains criteria from which Advisor will select, monitor and replace the Plan's investments. Once approved by Sponsor, Advisor will review the investment options
available to the Plan and will select the Plan's investments in accordance with the criteria set forth in the IPS. On a periodic basis, Advisor will monitor and evaluate the investments and replace any investment(s) that no longer meet the IPS criteria .
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT [z;JADVICE RE THIRD-PARTY MANAGERS:
Based on the Plan's IPS or other investment guidelines
established by the Plan, Advisor will review the third-party investment managers available to the Plan and will make recommendations to assist Sponsor with selecting a manager to manage some or all of the Plan's investments. Once
Sponsor approves the manager(s), Advisor will provide
reports, information and recommendations, on a periodic basis, designed to assist Sponsor with monitoring the
managers. If the IPS criteria require any manager to be removed, Advisor will provide recommendations to assist Sponsor with evaluating replacement managers.
• MANAGEMENT OF THIRD-PARTY MANAGERS:
Advisor will review with Sponsor the investment objectives, risk tolerance and goals of the Plan and provide to Sponsor an IPS or other documentation that contains criteria from which Advisor will select, monitor and replace the Plan's third-party investment managers. Once the IPS is approved, Adviso-r will select appropriate managers to manage all or a portion of the Plan's investments. Advisor will monitor the manager(s) in accordance with the IPS and will replace any manager(s) that is no longer meeting the IPS criteria. Advisor must have a limited power of attorney in order to hire any managers on behalf of the Plan.
Adviser will provide the Plan consulting services (the "Consulting Services") identified below: (check all that apply) I
! RETIREMENT PLAN CONSUL TING SERVICES
Administrative Support
~ Assistance, as needed, with reviewing plan objectives and features available through the plan ~ Review Plan committee structure and administrative policies/procedures Oversight of Relationship with Service Provider
~ Assist with process to select, monitor and replace service providers ~ Review of service providers disclosures and fee benchmarking ~ Provide reports and/or information designed to assist plan sponsor with monitoring service providers. ~ Vendor transition support and coordination of Plan conversion ~ Assist with preparation and review of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and/or Information (RFI) upon request* Investments
~ Coordinate committee meetings to monitor investment performance ~ Deliver updates to committee regarding market and economic conditions as necessary or upon request ~ Review of investment objectives and/or IPS as needed or upon request ~ Educate Plan committee members, as needed, regarding available investment options and strategies * Additional Project-Based Fees may apply; please see Appendix B.
Excluded Items
Sponsor acknowledges and agrees that the only responsibility of Adviser is to render the Services hereunder. Adviser will not be responsible for any of the following:
a) providing any services to, any other plan other than the Plan unless delegated to and accepted in writing by Adviser under a separate agreement or the appendices hereto;
b) any Services other than in connection with a class of investments selected above (e .g., DIAs, QDIAs, Models, etc.) (the "Covered Investments") and will not be responsible for providing recommendations or advice concerning other investments (e.g., employer securities, any Participant loans held by the Plan, unallocated accounts, mutual fund windows or brokerage accounts, etc.);
c) arranging for the execution of securities transactions through a broker-dealer the Sponsor believes can provide best execution;
d) the administration of the Plan or for the interpretation of Plan documents, the determination of Participant eligibility, benefits, vesting, distribute notices to Participants, the approval of the distributions to be made by the Plan, or any other action with respect to the management, administration or any other aspect of the Plan; e) Adviser does not provide the Services as a fiduciary to an investment contract, product or entity that holds the Plan' assets; nor does it perform recordkeeping or brokerage services to the Plan;
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT f) the duties of a trustee or Plan Administrator (as defined in ERISA §3(16)); g) maintaining or restoring (as applicable) the compliance of the Plan with the Code, ERISA, and other applicable law, or for other service providers' compliance with applicable law, including the Code and ERISA; h) any obligation or authority to take any action or render any advice with respect to the voting of proxies solicited by or with respect to issuers of securities held by the Plan or with respect to any legal proceedings, including class action lawsuits or bankruptcies, it being understood that such responsibilities lie with either Sponsor or another party appointed by Sponsorirrespective of the Plan's provisions; i) providing legal or tax advice to Sponsor, the Plan or the Participants (and Sponsor agrees to seek the advice of its own legal and tax advisors as to all Plan matters).
2. FEES
2.1 Amount and Timing
Sponsor agrees to pay Adviser a fee covering all charges for Services (the "Fees"). Sponsor agrees to pay Adviser for its Services rendered hereunder, in accordance with the fee schedule attached hereto as Appendix B. Adviser receives no direct or indirect compensation related to the assets of the Plan, which has not been disclosed in Appendix B, or which has not been otherwise disclosed in Appendix D, if applicable.
2.2 Direct Debit of Fees
Unless Adviser agrees to invoice Sponsor directly for its Fees, as noted in this Section 2, Sponsor hereby authorizes Adviser to invoice the Plan's custodian for the Fee and directs and authorizes the custodian to deduct the Fee from the Plan's Account. Sponsor hereby directs and authorizes Adviser to instruct the custodian to send Sponsor a statement, at least quarterly, indicating all amounts disbursed from the Account including the Fee paid from the Account. Sponsor acknowledges that it is Sponsor's responsibility to verify the accuracy of the calculation of the Fee and that the custodian will not determine whether the Fee is accurate or properly calculated.
2.3 Additional Fees and Adjustments
The Plan may also incur certain charges imposed by unaffiliated third parties. Such charges include, but are not limited to, custodial fees, brokerage commissions, transaction fees, charges imposed directly by a mutual fund, index fund, or exchange traded fund purchased for the Plan, which shall be disclosed in the fund's prospectus (e.g., fund management fees and other fund expenses), certain deferred sales charges, odd-lot differentials, transfer taxes, wire transfer and electronic fund fees, and other fees and taxes on brokerage accounts and securities transactions.
Unless Adviser agrees otherwise, no adjustments or refunds will be made in respect of any period for (i) appreciation or depreciation in the value of the Account during that period or (ii) any partial withdrawal of assets from the Account during that period. If this Agreement is terminated by Adviser or by Sponsor, Adviser will refund certain Fees to Sponsor to the extent provided in Section 8 of this Agreement. Unless Adviser agrees otherwise, all Fees shall be based on the total value of the assets in the Account without regard to any debit balance.
2.4 Valuation
In determining the value of the Account for purposes of calculating any asset-based Fees, Adviser may rely upon the valuation of assets provided by Sponsor or the Plan's custodian or recordkeeper without independent verification. If, however, there are circumstances which, in the Adviser's judgment, render the custodian's valuation inappropriate in which case Adviser will value securities listed on any national securities exchange at the closing price on the principal exchange on which they are traded (unless there are circumstances which in Adviser's judgment render a different method of valuation more appropriate), and will value any other securities in a manner determined in good faith by Adviser to reflect fair market value. In all events, Sponsor acknowledges that any such valuation will not be any guarantee of the market value of any of the assets in the Plan.
3. NON-EXCLUSIVITY
Sponsor understands that Adviser may give advice or take actions for other clients that differ from the advice given or the timing or nature of any action taken for the Account. In addition, Adviser may, but is not obligated to, purchase or sell or recommend for purchase or sale any security, which Adviser may purchase or sell for their own accounts or the account of any other client. Adviser has no obligation to advise Sponsor in the same manner as it may advise any of its other clients.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT
4. CUSTODY OF ASSETS AND OTHER SERVICES
Custody of all Plan assets will be maintained with a third party custodian selected by Sponsor ("Custodian"), and Adviser will not have custody of any Plan assets. Plan recordkeeping will be provided by a third party recordkeeper selected by Sponsor, and Sponsor will be solely responsible for paying all fees or charges of the Custodian and recordkeeper. Adviser will not be responsible or liable for recommendations or services rendered by third party service providers ("other provider") or the other provider's compliance with applicable laws, including the Code and ERISA.
Adviser will not act as custodian for the Assets, but may issue such instructions to the Custodian as may be appropriate in connection with the performance and/or settlement of transactions authorized by the Sponsor under the terms of this Agreement. Instructions of the Sponsor to Adviser and/or Custodian shall be made in writing unless the Adviser, in its sole discretion, determines that an instruction may be given orally. Adviser reserves the right to require the Sponsor to confirm oral instructions via first class mail, email or facsimile as soon as practical following receipt of oral instructions. Adviser shall instruct all brokers, dealers, investment companies, insurance companies, etc. executing orders on behalf of the Plan to forward to the Sponsor and/or Custodian copies of all confirmations promptly after execution of transactions.
5. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF SPONSOR Sponsor represents, warrants and covenants with Adviser as follows:
a) Sponsor is solely responsible for determining whether or not to enter into any arrangement(s) in connection with the Plan (including this Agreement) that are deemed by Sponsor to be necessary for the management and operation of the Plan and for determining whether or not any such arrangement(s) are reasonable and appropriate with respect to compensation paid for and conflicts of interest(s) arising in connection with the Services and/or products provided. Sponsor acknowledges that it has received and read this Agreement and the Services and Fees disclosed herein prior to entering into, renewing or extending this Agreement and that it has made an independent determination that the fees payable pursuant to this Agreement are reasonable.
b) This Agreement is binding on Sponsor and does not violate any prior obligation or agreements, and the Plan documents (and related Trust, custodial or annuity documents) permit payment of the Fees out of Plan assets. c) Sponsor is solely responsible for the Plan's compliance (both in form and operation) with all applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations, including Sponsor's obligation to obtain and maintain for the period of this Agreement any bond in the requisite amount which may be required and all federal and state privacy and information security laws governing the use, disclosure and safeguarding of nonpublic personal information which may apply to the Plan or the Sponsor. d) Sponsor is solely responsible for monitoring whether any class action lawsuits have been filed pertaining to investment recommendations, investment purchases, or investment sales, in determining whether the Plan is eligible to participate and whether it is in the best interest of the Plan to participate in such class action lawsuits. e) Sponsor will cooperate fully with Adviser in providing the Services. Sponsor authorizes Adviser to deliver documents and communicate with Plan and Participants or beneficiaries through the use of electronic means, including electronic mail and posting to a website . Sponsor, and not Adviser, is responsible for determining whether the use of such electronic communication complies with the applicable law.
f) Any individual signing this Agreement on behalf of the Sponsor represents that he/she: (i) is independent of and unrelated to Adviser or any of its affiliates; and (ii) has the power and authority under the Trust Agreement to appoint investment advisors, managers and consultants under the terms of the Plan and to enter into contractual arrangements with third parties to assist in the discharge of these and related duties in accordance with applicable law. g) Sponsor agrees to promptly provide Adviser with any amendments to the Plan's governing documents or Trust Agreement that are reasonably expected to alter or affect Adviser in the performance of Services under this Agreement in accordance with Section 11.
h) Sponsor acknowledges that investments fluctuate in value, and the value of investments when sold may be more or less than when purchased, and that past investment performance does not necessarily guarantee any level of future investment performance.
i) That if this Plan is governed by ERISA, the undersigned representative of Sponsor is the "Responsible Plan Fiduciary" to whom necessary disclosures have and will be made under ERISA Regulation 2550.408b-2.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT j) Sponsor acknowledges that Adviser may share the Plan's information among registered investment advisor affiliates which may have supervisory responsibilities over Adviser, only to the extent necessary. k) Sponsor agrees to provide Adviser with a list of persons or entities which it considers to be a "disqualified person," as that term is defined in Code §4975, or a "party in interest," as that term is defined in ERISA §3(14).
I) If Sponsor has directed Adviser to use a certain broker-dealer, Adviser is not responsible to seek best execution for transactions in the Account and the Plan may pay higher brokerage fees than if Adviser were authorized to direct transactions to another broker-dealer that could provide best execution . m) Sponsor understands that Adviser will have no responsibility for the diversification of all of the Plan's investments, and will have no duty, responsibility or liability for Plan assets that Adviser has not been engaged hereunder to provide Discretionary Fiduciary Services for.
n) Sponsor is the "named fiduciary" (as defined in ERISA §402(a)(2)) with respect to control or management of the assets of the Plan, and with respect to any Discretionary Fiduciary Services, Sponsor has duly appointed Adviser in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement to manage the assets of the Plan. o) No person or entity other than Sponsor has, or will exercise, the discretionary authority to appoint or terminate Adviser or to negotiate this Agreement, and each individual who can exercise such authority is exclusively employed by or associated with Sponsor or its affiliates.
p) Neither Sponsor nor any subsidiary or affiliate of Sponsor is affiliated with any counterparty that could reasonably be expected to be involved with investment transactions for the Plan. q) The Plan is offered only in conjunction with one or more third party administrators or other providers that have adequate operational capabilities.
r) Except as disclosed to Adviser in writing, no affiliate of Sponsor (within the meaning of ERISA §407(d) ), other than the affiliates listed in Appendix A, has any securities (including any "marketable obligations" within the meaning of ERISA §407(e)) issued and outstanding that are publicly traded, exempt from registration under Rule 144A adopted under the Securities Act of 1933 or otherwise available for purchase by the Plan.
6. REPRESENTATIONS OF ADVISER
Adviser represents as follows :
a) Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Advisers Act"), and will maintain such registration.
b) Adviser has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and will obtain and/or maintain any authorizations, permits, certifications, licenses, filings, registrations, approvals or consents, which must be obtained by it from any third party, including any governmental authority, in connection with this Agreement. c) Adviser will disclose to Sponsor any material change to the information regarding the Services, compensation and conflicts of interest as soon as reasonably practicable, but not later than 60 days from the date on which Adviser acquires knowledge of the material change or as otherwise required by applicable law. If Adviser makes an error or omission in disclosing information to Sponsor, Adviser will disclose the correct information to Sponsor as soon as practicable but not later than thirty (30) days from the date Adviser knows of the error or omission . d) If the Plan is governed by ERISA, upon written request by Sponsor, Adviser will disclose relevant information related to this Agreement and the compensation or Fees received under the Agreement reasonably in advance of the date Sponsor states that Sponsor must comply with Sponsor's applicable reporting and disclosure requirements of Title I of ERISA and applicable regulations, forms and schedules. If Adviser is unable to respond to Sponsor's written request reasonably in advance of Sponsor's need due to extraordinary circumstances beyond Adviser's control, Adviser will disclose the information as soon as practicable. Adviser acknowledges that, to the extent the Services constitute investment advice to the Plan for compensation, Adviser will be acting in a "fiduciary" capacity as those terms are used under Section 3{21)(A)(ii) of ERISA and that, to the extent Adviser exercises discretionary authority over the Plan's investments, it will be deemed to be acting in a "fiduciary" capacity as the Plan's "investment manager" as those terms are used under Section 3{38) of ERISA. Otherwise, the Services will be considered non-fiduciary Consulting Services.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT e) Adviser agrees to comply with all applicable federal and state privacy and information security laws governing the use, disclosure and safeguarding of nonpublic personal information. f) In providing IRA rollover educational information, Adviser will not solicit Participants or provide recommendations to Participants on the advisability of taking retirement plan distributions. Any Services to Participants that include discussions about individual distributions or how to invest the proceeds of a distribution will be performed under a separate agreement with the Participant.
7. STANDARD OF CARE; INDEMNIFICATION; DATA DISCLOSURE
7.1 Standard of Care
The sole standard of care imposed on Adviser in performing any investment fiduciary service(s) is to act with the care, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement will be deemed to limit any responsibility that Adviser may have to Sponsor to the extent such limitation would be inconsistent with applicable laws, including securities laws.
7.2 Indemnification
Sponsor agrees that the only responsibilities of Adviser hereunder are to render the Services specifically selected in Section 1 of this Agreement. Adviser agrees to indemnify and hold Sponsor harmless from any and all liabilities and claims, including damages, court costs, reasonable legal fees and costs of investigation, which arise directly from Adviser's intentional misconduct, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Services hereunder or representations by Adviser contained in Section 6 of this Agreement; provided, Adviser is not liable for any indirect, special, consequential or exemplary damages.
Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Adviser harmless from any and all liabilities and claims, including damages, court costs, reasonable legal fees and costs of investigation which arise from: (i) directly or indirectly, any investment loss experienced by the Plan or Plan participants or beneficiaries; (ii) Adviser's reliance or any action taken by Adviser in reliance upon any instruction(s) and/or information received by Adviser from Sponsor; (iii) any breach of Sponsor's representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement; {iv) any cause of action brought by the Sponsor, Plan participant{s) or beneficiaries and/or the Plan's service providers with respect to the Services hereunder, provided that such losses or damages are not directly caused by Adviser's intentional misconduct, gross negligence or breach of fiduciary duty; {v) any cause of action brought by a third party related to any other employee benefit plans sponsored by Sponsor which is not covered by this Agreement; {vi) any cause of action brought by a third party related to the Plan or any plan which arose as a result of actions or conduct prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement; and (vii) any breach of data security or any breach by the Sponsor, its directors, officers, employees, agents and/or service providers with respect to confidentiality and/or data security obligations. Liabilities and claims to which the indemnification in this paragraph applies would include, by way of example but not limitation, investment losses suffered as a result of a general market decline, investment losses arising in situations in which Sponsor fails to follow Adviser's recommendation{s) or in which Sponsor or a third party fails to properly implement such recommendation(s), and Plan participant or beneficiary claims arising out of an alleged claim of breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Sponsor or other Plan fiduciaries.
If Adviser is required to provide documents or testimony in connection with a legal proceeding involving the Plan, Sponsor will pay Adviser's reasonable costs, including the costs of its personnel and counsel, unless Adviser is a party to such proceeding and is found to have engaged in intentional misconduct, gross negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.
Sponsor will promptly notify Adviser of any errors in completeness in any of the data, analyses, opinions, or other information it provides to Adviser in connection with the rendering of Services hereunder. Adviser will not be responsible for any payment or contribution to the costs, fees, taxes, or penalties that the Sponsor, Participants or beneficiaries, or other Plan fiduciary incur as a result of any valuation or payment.
If Sponsor stock is held by or offered as an investment option under the Plan, or if Participants may invest the assets in their accounts through individual brokerage accounts, a mutual fund window or other similar arrangement, Adviser shall have no responsibility or liability with respect thereto.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Notwithstanding the foregoing, the federal securities laws or other applicable laws impose liabilities under certain circumstances who act in good faith, and therefore nothing herein shall in any way constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights which the Plan or the Sponsor may have under any federal securities laws or other applicable laws.
7.3 Data Disclosure; Information from Sponsor and Third Parties Adviser will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the data, analysis, opinion, and other information it provides in connection with the Services are correct. Although gathered from sources believed to be reliable, Sponsor acknowledges that Adviser cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information received by Sponsor or third parties used to provide the Services. The completeness and timeliness of all data and information used to provide the Services is dependent upon the sources of such data and information, which are outside of Adviser's control.
The Services provided by Adviser are based in part on information provided by Sponsor, Sponsor's representatives, and Sponsor's other service providers. Sponsor acknowledges that Adviser is entitled to rely upon all information necessary for it to carry out its duties under this Agreement that is provided by Sponsor's representatives or Sponsor's other service providers without independent verification by Adviser. Sponsor represents that all such information provided to Adviser is and shall be true, correct, timely and complete in all material respects. Sponsor agrees to promptly notify Adviser in writing of any material change in the information provided to Adviser and to promptly provide any such additional information as may be reasonably requested by Adviser.
Adviser is authorized by Sponsor to obtain all information from the Plan's other service providers, including recordkeepers, investment managers, the Plan's trustee and Plan's administrator as Adviser may reasonably require. Sponsor authorizes plan custodian, product vendor, trustee or any third party responsible for any aspect of plan operation to promptly release said information to Adviser immediately upon request.
8. TERM; TERMINATION
This Agreement and the authorizations provided herein are continuous and shall remain in full force and effect and be relied upon until either party terminates this Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party and Adviser will be entitled to a pro-rata amount of compensation. Any unearned fees paid in advance will be refunded. Such termination will not, however, affect the liabilities or obligations of the parties arising from transactions initiated prior to such termination, and such liabilities and obligations (together with the provisions of Sections 7, 12 and 13) will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. Upon termination, Adviser will have no further obligation under this Agreement to act or advise Sponsor with respect to the Services except as agreed to by the parties at the time of termination. Sponsor may cause the Agreement to terminate immediately if Sponsor does not implement Adviser's recommendations.
9. PRIVACY POLICY
Adviser's privacy policy is attached hereto in Appendix C. Adviser's policy about obtaining and disclosing information may change from time to time. Adviser will provide Sponsor with notice of any material change to this policy.
10. PROXIES; CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS
Sponsor acknowledges and agrees that Sponsor expressly retains the right and obligation to vote proxies, and agrees that Adviser is precluded from voting proxies for the Plan. Adviser will not be obligated to take action or render any advice involving legal action on behalf of Sponsor with respect to securities or other investments held by the Plan, or the issuers thereof, which become the subject of legal notices or proceedings, including bankruptcies. Sponsor is solely responsible for monitoring whether any class action lawsuits have been filed pertaining to investment recommendations, investment purchases, or investment sales, in determining whether the Plan is eligible to participate and whether it is in the best interest of the Plan to participate in such class action lawsuits. Sponsor further acknowledges that Adviser will not be responsible for prospectus delivery.
11. NOTICES
All written notices to any party under this Agreement shall be sent to such party by hand, first class mail, facsimile transmission, email, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address set forth on the signature page, or such other address as such party may designate in writing to the other, or by such other means as may be agreed to by the parties from time to time.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT
12. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof.
Any disputes relating to this Agreement between the parties hereto shall be adjudicated in Orange County, California.
13. ARBITRATION
All disputes, actions or controversies between Sponsor and Adviser or its affiliates, including any of Adviser's present or former officers, directors, agents or employees, which may arise out of or relate to any of the Services provided by Adviser under this Agreement, or the construction, performance or breach of this or any other agreement between Adviser or an affiliate and Sponsor, whether entered into prior to, on or subsequent to the date hereof, will be resolved by negotiation of the parties acting in good faith.
If the parties are unable to resolve their differences through negotiation, the parties will engage in non-binding mediation, using the services of an impartial, neutral mediator selected by mutual agreement of the parties. Mediation is voluntary once commenced, and either party may withdraw from the mediation process at its sole discretion at any time. The fees of the mediator will be shared equally by the parties.
If the parties are unable to agree on a single mediator or to resolve the issues through mediation, to the extent permitted by law, then the matter will be settled by binding arbitration under JAMS. Unless the parties can agree on a single arbitrator, the matter will be heard by a panel of three arbitrators, one selected by each party and the third selected by the two arbitrators selected by the parties. Judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrator(s) will be final, and may be entered into any court having jurisdiction.
In agreeing to binding arbitration, Sponsor is aware that:
a) Arbitration is final and binding on the parties.
b) The parties are waiving their right to seek remedies in court, including the right to jury trial, except to the extent the waiver would violate applicable law.
c) Pre-arbitration discovery is generally more limited than and potentially different in form and scope from court proceedings.
d) The arbitration award is not required to include factual findings or legal reasoning and any Party's right to appeal or to seek modification of rulings by the arbitrators is strictly limited. e) The panel of arbitrators will typically include a minority of arbitrators who were or are affiliated with the securities industry.
Sponsor understands that this Agreement to arbitrate does not constitute a waiver of its right to seek a judicial forum where such waiver would be void under federal or applicable state securities laws.
14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; RECEIPT OF WRITTEN INFORMATION
Sponsor acknowledges that before this Agreement was entered into, Adviser provided to Sponsor information regarding Services, compensation, fiduciary obligations and conflicts of interest, including Adviser's Form ADV Parts II and 111, and any supplements required by Rule 204-3 of the Act; Adviser's Privacy Policy; and this Agreement. Sponsor acknowledges that it received such information sufficiently in advance of entering into this Agreement to make an informed decision in determining the Services to be:
(i) necessary for the operation of the Plan; and (ii) reasonable and appropriate based upon the compensation to be paid for the Services.
15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
15.1 Equitable Advisors
Some of the investment advisor representatives ("IARs") providing Investment Fiduciary Services on behalf of Adviser under this Agreement are separately licensed as registered representatives of Equitable Advisors, an unaffiliated broker-dealer, member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. For Investment Fiduciary Services
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT provided under this Agreement, Adviser is providing the advice as a fiduciary under ERISA. Any Investment Fiduciary Services provided under this Agreement are solely the responsibility of Adviser, which is independent of Equitable Advisors. Equitable Advisors is not acting as an ERISA fiduciary for the Plan, and neither provides, oversees nor monitors (i) any investment advice Sponsor may receive from Adviser or (ii) the compliance of Adviser with applicable law including but not limited to ERISA fiduciary standards and prohibited transaction rules.
15.2 Captions
Section headings are for convenience only and are not of substantive effect providing.
15.3 Severability
It is understood by the parties that if any provision, duty, obligation or undertaking herein contained is held by the courts to be unenforceable or illegal or in conflict with applicable law, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid or unenforceable provision was not contained herein.
15.4 Entire Agreement
This Agreement is the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written statements dealing with this subject.
15.5 Assign ability
No assignment of this Agreement shall be made without the express written consent of all parties in accordance with the Act.
15.6 Effect
This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, survivors, administrators and permitted assigns.
15.7 Modification
The Agreement may be modified, including without limitation the Services to be provided by Adviser or the Fees charged by Adviser:
(i) by written agreement between Adviser and Sponsor; or (ii) the Adviser may propose to increase or otherwise change the Fees charged, to change the Services provided, to assign the Agreement or otherwise modify this Agreement by giving Sponsor at least 60 days advance notice of the proposed change. The notice will be given in the manner described in Section 11 above. The notice will:
(i) explain the proposed modification of the Fees, Services, assignment or other provisions; (ii) fully disclose any resulting changes in the Fees to be charged as a result of any proposed change in the Services or other changes to this Agreement; (iii) identify the effective date of the change; (iv) explain Sponsor's right to reject in writing the change or terminate this Agreement; and (v) state that pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, if Sponsor fails to object to the proposed change(s) before the date on which the change(s) become effective Sponsor will be deemed to have consented to the proposed change(s).
If Sponsor rejects any change to this Agreement proposed by Adviser, then Adviser will not be authorized to make the proposed change. In that event Sponsor will have an additional 60 days from the proposed effective date (or such additional time beyond 60 days as may be agreed by Adviser) to locate a service provider in place and instead of Adviser. If at the end of such additional 60 day period (or such additional time period as agreed by Adviser), the parties have not reached agreement, this Agreement will automatically terminate.
15.8 Waiver of Limitation
Nothing in this Agreement will in any way constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights which the Sponsor or the Plan or any other party may have under ERISA or federal or state securities laws.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Adviser and Sponsor hereby execute this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
ADVISER SPONSOR
By: By:
Date: Date:
Print Name: Taylor Boyd Print Name: Nicole R. Zieba
Title: Partner Title: City Manager
Street Address: 2050 Main Street, Suite 510 Street Address 1: 845 G. Street City, State, Zip: Irvine, CA 92614 Street Address 2:
Approved by Officer of City, State, Zip: Reedley, CA 93654 Adviser:
Effective Date: 1/15/2024
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Appendix A: Plan Profile
Legal Name of Plan City of Reedley
Tax ID#
Company Name City of Reedley
Company Address 845 G. Street, Reedley, CA 93654
Plan Type 457(b)
Plan Inception Date
Sponsor securities described in Section S(r)
Name (first & last) of Named Fiduciar(ies}, (aka Plan Sponsors) Nicole Zieba Name (first & last) of Plan Administrator(s) Paul Melikian Company Name under the Plan City of Reedley
Plan Administrator Address 845 G. Street, Reedley, CA 93654 Primary Contact Phone 559-637-4200 ext. 300
Email Paul [email protected]
Company Name of Third Party Administrator MissionSquare / Nationwide Third Party Administrator Address
Primary Contact Phone
Email
Company Name of Corporate Trustee
Corporate Trustee Address
Primary Contact Phone
Email
Company Name of Record keeper MissionSquare / Nationwide Recordkeeper Address
Primary Contact Phone
Email
Company Name of Custodian
Custodian Address
Primary Contact Phone
Email
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Appendix B: Fee Schedule
The Fees will be determined in one of the following ways for the Assets (and if applicable, for the DB Assets):
~ Assets Under Management: Adviser will bill the Plan quarterly, in arrears (unless indicated otherwise below), an asset-based fee for providing the Services. Sponsor agrees that the Fees will be based upon the value of assets held in custody by the Plan's custodian (such assets being referred to herein as the "Account") excluding the value of any assets invested in Participants' self-directed brokerage accounts, using closing prices at quarter end, at one-quarter of the annual rates set forth below:
Amount: Adviser's Fee will represent a pro rata portion of an annual fee: (check one of the following) D Equal to _____ % of the value of the Account; or
~ Determined according to the schedule below.
Plan Assets Fees
$0 to $1,000,000 $7,500
$1,000,001 to $2,000,000 75 basis points
$2,000,001 to $10,000,000 50 basis points
$10,000,001 to $20,000,000 35 basis points
$20,000,001 to $40,000,000 25 basis points
$40,000,001 to $75,000,000 15 basis points
$75,000,001 to $150,000,000 10 basis points
$150,000,001 + negotiable
The Fees will be payable in full within thirty (30) days from the date of Adviser's invoice.
Timing: (check one of the following if billing is not in arrears) D Fees will be charged quarterly in advance; or
~ Determined according to Recordkeeper policies.
D Flat Fee:$ __ per year flat annual fee, payable quarterly, in arrears of the period for which Services are to be rendered . The stated annual fee may be increased each year with a cost of living adjustment of three percent {3%) with advance notice to the client.
D Project-Based Fee: If applicable, Adviser will charge as a one-time, Project-Based Fee to provide one or more of the above-referenced Services or, alternatively, for: ____________________ as follows :
Amount Due Date Due
$ __ or D Payable upon delivery.
Adviser has received, or expects to receive, the following non-cash compensation in connection with Adviser's rendering of the Services (include nature, value and source, if applicable):
•
~ None
Sponsor authorizes Adviser to bill all invoices for Se rvices under this Agreement by: (check one of the following) ~ Invoice third-party directly. (Must complete third -party's required form) D Invoice Sponsor directly. (invoice will be sent to address noted in Sponsor's signature below unless notice is provided otherwise)
Sponsors agrees and acknowledges that billing invoices to a third-party will be for the convenience of the parties to this Agreement and will not relieve Sponsor of his/her full responsibility for the payment of all amounts due to Adviser under this Agreement. Sponsor
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT further agrees to pay all billed amounts that are not paid on Sponsor's behalf in a timely manner. Sponsor is urged to review all invoices and to verify the accuracy of the calculation of all amounts billed and paid under this Agreement.
In the event that Sponsor instructs Adviser to bill the Plan directly, but the Plan fails to pay any invoice within thirty (30) days of the date thereof, Sponsor authorizes Adviser to bill the Plan's custodian with respect to that invoice in the manner set forth herein. The fees set forth herein do not cover any execution, custody, clearing or settlement services provided by Adviser or Adviser's affiliates or investment management fees of investment managers retained by Sponsor.
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT Appendix C: Privacy Policy
BURNHAM GIBSON WEAL TH ADVISORS, LLC
PRIVACY POLICY
OUR COMMITMENT
Burnham Gibson Wealth Advisors, LLC ("BGWA") is committed to safeguarding the confidential information of its clients.
We hold all personal information provided to us in the strictest confidence. These records include all personal information that BGWA collects from clients in connection with any of the services provided by us. BGWA has not and will not disclose client information to nonaffiliated third parties, except as permitted by law. If we anticipate a change in our firm policy, BGWA will advise its clients in advance.
We may use financial and other information that the client or their designated representatives provide us to help them meet their personal financial goals while guarding against any real or perceived infringements of their rights of privacy.
THE INFORMATION WE COLLECT ABOUT You
The categories of nonpublic personal information that BGWA collects from a client depends upon the scope of the client engagement. It will generally include information about their personal finances, information about their health to the extent that it is needed for the planning process, information about transactions between the client and third parties and information from consumer reporting agencies.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION COLLECTED
BGWA strives to maintain a secure office and computer environment to ensure that client information is not placed at unreasonable risk.
BGWA limits access to information to only employees and others who have a business or professional reason for knowing, and only to nonaffiliated parties as permitted by law. (For example, federal regulations permit us to share a limited amount of information about a client with a brokerage firm in order to execute securities transactions on their behalf, to supervise our employees that are also registered representatives with their firm, or so that our firm can discuss the client's financial situation with their accountant or lawyer.)
Employees are advised that all information, transactions, records , etc. of our clients is private and must be held in strict confidence. Employees are informed not to discuss a client's affairs with unauthorized persons including other BGWA employees. For unaffiliated third parties that require access to a client's personal information, including financial service companies, consultants and auditors, we also require strict confidentiality in our agreements with them and expect them to keep this information private. Federal and state regulators also may review firm records as permitted under law.
DISCLOSING INFORMATION TO AFFILIATES
BGWA may share information with its affiliate as permitted by federal and state laws. This may be information about your transactions and experiences, and for our affiliate to offer and provide you with additional products and services that may be valuable to you; however, we will not share information about your creditworthiness. If you do not want us to share information with our affiliate to market products or services to you , please complete the mail-in form on the next page and send it to us at our Irvine office.
KEEPING YOUR INFORMATION ACCURATE AND SECURE
We use security measures to protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use. These measures include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings. BGWA informs and trains its employees on the importance of confidentiality and customer privacy.
OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS
BGWA may, as necessary, use various services from nonaffiliated third parties for the purpose of supporting the financial products and services we provide to clients. These parties must agree to strict confidentiality in our agreements with them
INVESTMENT FIDUCIARY & RETIREMENT PLAN CONSULTING AGREEMENT and we expect them to keep all information private. We do not provide clients' personally identifiable information to mailing list vendors or solicitors for any purpose.
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
Personally identifiable information about a client will be maintained during the time they are a client, and for the required time thereafter that such records are required to be maintained by federal and state securities laws. After this required period of record retention, all such information will be destroyed.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
BGWA directs a client or other interested person who has any questions about our privacy policies or procedures, to contact BGWA either in writing at: 2050 Main Street, Suite 510, Irvine, CA 92614 or phone: (949) 833-5700.
X ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark if you want to limit:
D Do not allow your affiliate to use my personal information to market to me.
Name(s)
Street Address
City, State, ~ip Code
Last 4 digits of social security
#
Last 4 digits of account #(s)
1--------------------------1
Mail to:
Burnham Gibson
2050 Main Street, Suite 510
Irvine, CA 92614
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
DATE: January 9, 2024
C8J Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: t'J ----
TITLE: APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR SOFTWARE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IWORQ SYSTEMS, INC. FOR
ONGOING AUTOMATED SOLAR PERMITTING AND RELATED PAYMENT
PROCESSING SERVICES
SUBMITTED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manager
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year software services agreement with iWorQ Systems, Inc. (iWorQ) at a total cost of $38,000 for ongoing automated solar permitting and related payment processing services, to be fully reimbursed from a grant.
BACKGROUND
California Senate Bill 129 of 2021 appropriated $20 million to the California Energy Commission from the State's General Fund to support cities in recovering costs associated with establishing an online automated solar program . The intent of this program is to expedite and streamline the permitting process. Additionally, this program will reduce the amount of staff time it takes to review and approve residential solar installations. This new program will be able to quickly ensure the residential solar energy system is safe and complies with the California Building Code before approving the permit application.
On May 23, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign a grant agreement with the California Energy Commission for the California Automated Permit Processing Program (CalAPP) accepting up to $40,000 for activities related to online solar permitting. On November 14, 2023, the City Council authorized the renewal of a master software services agreement with iWorQ, a company the City has worked with since 2019. The Public Works, Engineering, Community Development, Community Services and Fire departments are currently using the iWorQ software platform to track and manage activities such as: encroachment permits, building permits, plan checks , code enforcement matters, and public works and facilities work orders. The software has worked well and met expectations.
At the time of approval of the master agreement with iWorQ, Council was advised that staff were working to add a subscription to the iWorQ platform for solar permitting, and that a contract amendment would be forthcoming.
The Community Development Department is already using iWorQ for building permits and plan checks, therefore having the new automated solar permitting integrate with the existing system is a big advantage over a standalone solution. Once implemented, customers will be able to pay online for their solar permit using a payment processing service that is included with the software services agreement, similar to software currently used by the Community Services Department for online registration and payment of recreation and enrichment activities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate impact to the General Fund. The City currently pays an $26,850 annual software license fee to iWorQ; however, the CalAPP grant will cover the cost of this additional software service for the first five years, after such time the City will need to pick up the annual cost (currently at $7,600) from the General Fund. In the future, the City will have the option to amend solar permitting fees to include cost recovery for the annual software cost.
ATTACHMENTS
iWorQ Software Services Agreement: Solar Permitting
www.iworq.com
IWORQ SERVICE{S) AGREEMENT
For iWorQ application{s) and service{s)
iWor~~-~
Reedley hereafter known as ("Customer"}, enters into THIS SERVICE(S} AGREEMENT ("Agreement") with iWorQ Systems Inc. ("iWorQ") with its principal place of business 1125 West 400 North, Suite 102, Logan, Utah 84321.
1. SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (Saas) TERMS OF ACCESS:
iWorQ grants Customer a non-exclusive, non-transferable limited access to use iWorQ service(s}, application(s) on iWorQ's authorize website for the fee(s) and terms listed in Appendix A. This agreement will govern all application(s) and service(s) listed in the Appendix A.
2. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY:
Customer acknowledges that they are receiving only a limited subscription to use the application(s}, service(s}, and related documentation, if any, and shall obtain no titles, ownership nor any rights in or to the application(s}, service(s}, and related documentation, all of which title and rights shall remain with iWorQ. Customer shall not permit any user to reproduce, copy, or reverse engineer any of the application(s}, service(s) and related documentation. iWorQ is not responsible for the content entered into iWorQ's database or uploaded as a document or image.
3. TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION:
Customer agrees to provide the time, resources, and personnel to implement iWorQ's service(s) and application(s). iWorQ will assign a senior account manager and an account management team to implement service(s) and application(s). Typical implementation will take less than 60 days. iWorQ account managers will call twice per week, provide remote training once per week, and send weekly summary emails to the customer implementation team. iWorQ can provide project management and implementation document upon request.
iWorQ will do ONE import of the Customer's data. This import consists of importing data, sent by the Customer, in an electronic relational database format.
Customer must have clear ownership of all forms, letters, inspections, checklists, and data sent to iWorQ.
iWorQ Systems, P.O. Box 3784, Logan, Utah, 84323 11
www.iworq.com iWor~~-~
4. CUSTOMER DATA:
Customer data will be stored on AWS GovCloud. iWorQ will use commercially reasonable efforts to backup, store and manage Customer data. iWorQ does backups twice per week and offsite backups twice per week. The subscription will renew each year on the anniversary date of this Agreement unless terminated (see 7. TERMINATION}.
Customer can run reports and export data from iWorQ application(s} at any time.
Customer can pay iWorQ for additional data management service(s}, onsite backups, application(s} and other service(s}.
Data upload and storage is provided to every Customer. This includes uploading files up to 3MB and 10 GB of managed data storage on AWS GovCloud. Additional upload file sizes and managed data storage sizes can be provided based on the application(s} and service(s} listed in Appendix A.
Customer can upload and store images with personal information like driver's license, and more.
This Data can be used by the customer to complete the permitting, licensing, or code enforcement processes. Customer understands that the data must be uploaded and stored in the Sensitive Data Upload section of the iWorQ software for access and security purposes. iWorQ is not responsible: (1) For the content entered into iWorQ's database, (2) For images or documents scanned locally and uploaded by the iWorQ users, (3} For documents or images uploaded by citizens over the web, and (4) For backup data sent to the Customer by iWorQ.
5. CUSTOMER SUPPORT:
Customer support and training are FREE and available Monday-Friday, from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M .
MST, for any authorized user with a login. iWorQ provides unlimited remote Customer training (through webinars}, phone support, help files, and documentation. Basic support request is typically handled the same day. iWorQ provides "Service NOT Software".
6. BILLING:
iWorQ will invoice Customer on an annual basis. iWorQ will send invoice by mail and by email to the address(s} listed in Appendix A. Terms of the invoice are net 30 days. Any billing changes will require that a new Service(s} Agreement be signed by Customer.
Any additional costs imposed by the Customer including business licenses, fees, or taxes will be added to the Customer's invoice yearly. Support and services fees may increase in subsequent years, but will increase no more than 5% per year.
Customer pricing is based on a~ Year Term and reflects a discounted annual price. Changes to the Term or the Termination Policy (Section 7. Termination:}, will affect the annual pricing and could double your annual cost. Customer reserves the right to pay the 5 Year Term upfront to secure discounted annual pricing.
iWorQ Systems, P.O. Box 3784, Logan, Utah, 84323
www.iworq.com .,11 ' " .,,or~_,
7. TERMINATION:
Either party may terminate this agreement, after the initial 5-YEAR TERM, without cause if the terminating party gives the other party sixty (60) days written notice. Should Customer terminate any application(s) and or service(s) the remaining balance will immediately become due. Should Customer terminate any part of the application(s) and or service(s) a new Service(s) Agreement will need to be signed.
Upon termination (7. TERMINATION), iWorQ will discontinue all application(s) and or service(s) under this Agreement; iWorQ will provide customer with an electronic copy of all of Customer's data, if requested by the Customer (within 3-5 business days).
During the term of the Agreement, the Customer may request a copy of all of Customer's data for a cost of no more than $2500; and all provisions of this Agreement will continue.
8. ACCEPTABLE USE:
Customer represents and warrants that the application(s) and service(s) will only be used for lawful purposes, in a manner allowed by law, and in accordance with reasonable operating rules, and policies, terms, and procedures. iWorQ may restrict access to users upon misuse of application(s) and service(s).
9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah.
Customer recognizes that iWorQ Systems is a software company located in Utah. Any changes to this section, including changes to the Venue or Forum, will be subject to an increase in their annual pricing.
iWorQ Systems, P.O. Box 3784, Logan, Utah, 84323
www.iworq.com
10. CUSTOMER IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION:
Primary Implementation Contact
Office Phone
Secondary Implementation Contact
Office Phone
Cell
Cell
11. CUSTOMER BILLING INFORMATION:
Billing Contact
Office Phone Cell
Title
Title
Email
Title
Email
Email
PO# (if required) Tax Exempt ID#
12. ACCEPTANCE:
iWor~~-~
The effective date of this Agreement is listed below. Authorized representative of Customer and iWorQ have read the Agreement and agree and accept all the terms.
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Office Number
Cell Number
Effective Date:
iWorQ Systems, P.O. Box 3784, Logan, Utah, 84323
www.iworq.com
iWorQ Service(s) Agreelllent
APPENDIX A
iWorQ Systems, P.O. Box 3784, Logan, Utah, 84323
iWor~~-~
iWorQ Cost Prouosal
Reedley Population- 25582
845 G Street Prepared by: Nathan Romrell
Reedley, CA 93654
Annual Subscription Fees
Amilication(~) and Service(~). Package Price Billing
Permit Management - Solar $6,500.00
-Available on any computer, tablet, or mobile device using Chrome X5 Browser
-Track Solar Permits
-Track fees and payments
-Inspection and plan review tracking
-Includes Premium Data (25MB Uploads, 100GB Total Storage) -Includes Sensitive File Uploads that are required to finish permit, licensing or code enforcement process (i.e Driver's License) -Configurab le reporting
-Quarterly parcel update
-OpenStreetMap tracking abilities
-Free forms, letters, and/or permits utilizing iWorQ's template library, and up to 3 custom letters
2 Solar Permitting Portal Forms
- Data form with required fie lds
- Rejects applications that do not meet industry standards - Requires payment of fees before permit can be printed - Issues a solar permit Card upon successful application and payment
Additional Forms $250.00
- Adds additional forms to the account equal to the amount listed X 5 under item IV in the notes section below
Payment Processing (Payroc) $850.00
- Online Credit/debit card processing X5 - Payments are recorded and tracked in iWorQ - iWorQ's reporting tool can track all historical transactions Subscription Fee Total 5 year term paid upfront $38,000.00 One-Time Setup, GIS integration, and Data Conversion Fees Service(~). Full Price Cost Billing
NOTES SERVICE(S) DESCRIPTION
II. This subscription Fee and Agreement have been provided at the Customer's request and is valid for 25 days
III. This cost proposal cannot be disclosed or used to compete with other companies.
IV. This agreement includes 2 web forms for Solar.
V. The 5 year total of $38,000 will be invoiced within two weeks of receiving signed agreement. 5% price increase will not be applicable for the 5 year agreement if paid upfront.
DATE:
TITLE:
FROM:
APROVED:
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
D Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
~ Public Hearing
ITEM NO: _2_ __
January 9, 2024
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX TWOSTORY TOWNHOME DUPLEXES SITUATED NORTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF SOUTH FRANKWOOD AVENUE AND WEST LILAC AVENUE (APNs 365-220-80 & 365-220-81):
A) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-055, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 2023-16, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2023, PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-04, REZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-07, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-056, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-04
C) HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2023-007, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING REZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
AND AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF REEDLEY
D) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023-057, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
®/
R d L H D. ~t}t: o ney . orton, Irector U ·
Community Development De artment
Nicole R. Zieba
City Manager
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions pertaining to two contiguous parcels situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365- 220-80 and 365-220-81 ):
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-055, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Reedley adopting Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16, pertaining to the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated September 26, 2023, prepared for General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04, Rezone Application No. 2021-07, and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07 B) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-056, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Reedley approving General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 C) Hold a Public Hearing on the Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2023-007, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Reedley approving Rezone Application No. 2021-07 and authorizing the amendment of the Official Zoning Map of the City of Reedley
D) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-057, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Reedley approving Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04, Rezone Application No. 2021-07, and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07, pertains to the construction of six two-story townhome duplexes developed as a Planned Unit Development that will consist of twelve dwelling units on a .90-acre site. The proposed residential project location is on two contiguous undeveloped parcels situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81). Each unit will be approximately 1,483 sq. ft. in size, and will consist of 3-bedrooms and 2-bathrooms with the proposed off-street parking consisting of 28 total spaces. A new driveway approach will be located on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 specifically relates to the reclassification of two contiguous undeveloped parcels of land located northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81). The project site consists of .90 acres. The two parcels have a current General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. The applicant proposes to reclassify the two abovementioned parcels to the General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential. The reclassification of land use requires the zoning district designation be changed in order to be consistent with the General Plan.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two contiguous undeveloped parcels of land located northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81 ). The parcels current zone district designation is R-1 (SP) (Single-Unit Residential) and the applicant is proposing to reclassify the two abovementioned parcels to the RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential1) zone district designation. The RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential) zone district designation would be consistent with the proposed General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential. A twelve-unit townhome duplex is a by-right use in the RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential) zone district.
1. For purposes of directly reciting the Reedley General Plan, the terms 'Multi-Unit Residential' and 'Multi-Family Residential' shall be used interchangeably.
The project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) through Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07. According to the Reedley Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 11, PUDs involve projects with careful application of design in order to achieve a more functional, aesthetically pleasing and harmonious living and working environment within the city which otherwise might not be possible by strict application and adherence to the regulations within the zoning code. With PUDs, the development standards of site area and dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, distances between structures, and off-street parking need not be strictly compliant with the standards prescribed in the zoning district where the project is located. However, the applicant has to demonstrate by the design of the proposed project that the objectives of the zoning ordinance will be achieved.
The project site has Cyrier Avenue to the west and South Frankwood Avenue to the east. There are currently no existing driveway approaches on both streets abutting the parcels. The size of both parcels is slightly less than one acre. The zoning code requires 3.5 spaces per unit. The project would need to have 42 parking stalls. With the project being constructed through the PUD process, the applicant is proposing to have 28 parking stalls. The site plan still provides adequate space for emergency access and vehicular circulation, therefore staff believes there will be no detrimental effects to public health, safety or welfare because of the project.
APN Existing Proposed Existing Zoning Proposed
Land Use Land Use Zoning
365-220-80 Low Density Medium Density R-1 (SP) (Single- RM-3 ( Multi-Unit Residential Residential Unit Residential) Residential)
365-220-81 Low Density Medium Density R-1 (SP) ( Single- RM-3 ( Multi-Unit Residential Residential Unit Residential) Residential)
The City of Reedley has conducted an environmental analysis for the above-described project through Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16. The project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) prepared for the Reedley General Plan 2030 Update (GPU). The City of Reedley, as the lead agency through the Community Development Department, is proposing the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
On December 7, 2023, staff presented Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04, Rezone Application No. 2021-07 (Ordinance No. 2023-007), and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07 to the Planning Commission for their consideration, to receive public comment, and to make a formal recommendation to the City Council.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of all three entitlement applications and the accompanying environmental assessment. Rezone Application No. 2021-07 is being presented to the City Council for introduction and first reading as Ordinance No. 2023-007.
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 and General Plan Consistency General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two contiguous undeveloped parcels of land located northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81 ). The two parcels have a current General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential has a range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to reclassify the above-described parcels to the General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential. Medium Density Residential has a range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre. The reclassification of land use requires the zoning district designation be changed in order to be consistent with the General Plan. The proposed re-designations are summarized in the subsequent table:
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04
APN Existing Proposed
Land Use Land Use
365-220-80 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling unit per acre) (8-15 dwelling unit per acre) 365-220-81 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling unit per acre) (8-15 dwelling unit per acre) Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 2023-056 shows what the proposed General Plan amendment would look like on the City of Reedley General Plan Land Use Map.
The overall guiding land use principles described in the General Plan are designed to provide an overall direction to assist decision-makers in determining the appropriateness of a request to changing either a planned land use or zone district designation. Those guiding principles are described in detailed statements of goals and polices outlined in the approved GPU (GPU, 2.3 Land Use Element Guiding Principles).
Moreover, there are also specific Land Use Element goals and policies, which when applied, would further indicate the appropriateness of the General Plan Amendment application. In this case, these goals and policies further support approval of the General Plan Amendment application, as well as, the potential future approval and/or development of the site for future market-rate housing. Below are those directly applicable goals and policy statements:
LU 2.5B
LU 2.5.12
LU 2.5.16
LU 2.6A
LU 2.6B
LU 2.7A
LU 2.7B
LU 2.7C
LU 2.7.2
LU 2.7.5
LU 2.7.6
LU 2.7.7
Minimize leap-frogging, low density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of service and employment areas, or the creation of peninsula development greater than ¼ mile from existing urban areas.
New urban development should occur in an orderly manner with initial development occurring on the available undeveloped properties within the City's limits which would be considered in-fill, by-passed parcels or in parcels in close proximity to the urban core, places of employment and established neighborhoods.
The City shall encourage in-fill projects that incorporate pedestrian-oriented design.
New development (residential, commercial, and public) shall be designed in a way that creates fully integrated neighborhoods with a variety of land uses arranged so that access by walking or bicycling is possible and encouraged.
New development in the planning area shall be designed on a pedestrian scale, as opposed to the automobile scale.
Provide for the distribution of varying residential densities throughout the community to ensure that residential development reflects various income and lifestyle options.
Residential densities shall be moderately increased to encourage more compact development consistent with smart growth design principles.
Preserve existing neighborhoods and create strong new neighborhoods that are well designed and maintained.
Residential development projects shall achieve the minimum density requirements as designated by the General Plan Land Use Map.
Encourage and support within existing neighborhoods in-fill developments.
Ensure that residential development occurs in areas that have sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the density of residential development being proposed.
Residential development shall be designed in a manner so that new
LU2.7.13
LU2.7.15
development is well connected to the surrounding area and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle transportation.
Architectural design of medium and high-density development shall be compatible with the surrounding character of the residential area.
Multiple-family developments shall have adequate on-site parking designed to be aesthetically pleasing in a manner that does not distract from the residential character of the area.
In addition, the Medium Density Residential Planned Land Use Designation is intended for "singlefamily or multiple family development. Medium density development shall be located near or adjacent to collector or arterial intersection and close to shopping and employment opportunities. Multiple family developments may serve as a transition from commercial to single-family residential neighborhoods." (Reedley 2030 General Plan, page 37). The distribution of housing types and ranges through varying residential densities throughout the community will ensure housing opportunities for all lifestyles and income levels. The proposed project principally consists of compact in-fill residential development adjacent to an existing single-family residential neighborhood.
Therefore, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses. These factors have been evaluated as described above. Upon consideration of this evaluation, it can be concluded that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 is appropriate for the subject property.
According to the current 2015-2023 Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, the project location is not included on the Reedley Inventory of VacanUUnderutilized Parcels in the Existing City Limits. The existing Housing Element identified approximately 148.22 acres of vacant or underutilized land for the potential development of various housing types. In the draft 2023-2031 Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, these parcels were included on the vacant land with a max potential for five dwelling units being constructed. This project will add an additional seven units that were not accounted for in the draft Housing Element, either in the moderate- or above moderateincome categories, depending on what is being assessed for tenant rent (which is not known at this time).
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Rezone Application No. 2021-07 (Ordinance No. 2023-007) pertains to re-designating APNs 365-220- 80 and 365-220-81 from the R-1 (SP) (Single-Unit Residential) zone district designation to the RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential) zone district designation to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment application described above:
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 (Ordinance No. 2023-007) APN
365-220-80
365-220-81
Existing
Zoning
R-1 (SP)
(Single-Unit
Residential)
R-1 (SP)
(Single-Unit
Residential)
RM-3 (MultiUnit
Residential)
RM-3 (MultiUnit
Residential)
The proposed rezone application is seeking to reclassify the subject parcels to the RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential) zone district designation from the R-1 (SP) (Single-Unit Residential) zone district designation. This proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment application that is seeking to reclassify the subject parcels from the General Plan Planned Land Use designation of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Exhibit A attached to Ordinance No. 2023-007 shows what the proposed Rezone Application would look like on the City of Reedley Zoning Map.
If General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 is approved, which staff has determined is appropriate for the subject property as described above, the rezone for the proposed project remains consistent with the GPU Planned Land Use and Zoning District Consistency Matrix (GPU, Table 2-4,
In accordance with Reedley Municipal Code Section 10-15-10, any project submitted to the City of Reedley requiring multiple decisions, actions or permits involving both the City Council and the Planning Commission, the decision(s) of the Planning Commission pertaining to such project shall not be final but shall be advisory to the City Council. The City Council shall be vested with final decisionmaking powers for all decisions pertaining to the project. An application requesting to reclassify and rezone land within city limits must be approved by the City Council, which requires all entitlement activities associated with this project to be delivered to the City Council for final action.
The Planning Commission voted to approve the recommendation to the City Council on the General Plan Amendment application, rezone application, conditional use permit application, and the accompanying environmental assessment. Thus, the City Council will take final action on the entitlement applications and accompanying environmental assessment.
BORDERING PROPERTY INFORMATION
'~
~-- Planned Land Use Existina Zonina Existina Land Use
Low Density Residential R-1 (SP) Vacant Land/Single-Unit North Residence
East Public/Institutional Facility R-1-6 Single-Unit Residential Neighborhood
South Low Density Residential R-1 (SP) Single-Unit Residential Neighborhood
West Low Density Residential R-1 (SP) Vacant Land
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Prior to the application submittal being deemed complete, there have been three community meetings hosted by the applicant and City staff. The first community meeting, hosted by the applicant, was held on September 22, 2022, in the Multi-purpose room at Jefferson Elementary School. The second community meeting, hosted by City staff, was held on November 8, 2022, at the Reedley City Hall - Council Chambers. The third community meeting, hosted by the applicant, was held on February 16, 2023, in the Multi-purpose room at Jefferson Elementary School.
Notices for each meeting were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. City staff and the applicant answered questions and addressed concerns brought up by the residents that attended the meetings. At the conclusion of the community outreach, the applicant redesigned the project to address concerns related to privacy, traffic, and noise. City staff followed up by providing additional information via e-mail to interested neighbors that attended the community meetings.
Originally, the applicant proposed to construct two, two-story apartment buildings on the site. The apartment complex was initially called "The Megalodon Apartments." The original design called for sixteen dwelling units with each unit proposed to have three-bedrooms and two-bathrooms. Parking spaces for the proposed apartment complex would front Cyrier Avenue and South Frankwood Avenue.
After receiving comments from concerned residents, the applicants redesigned the project and is now proposing to have a townhome development consisting of twelve-units with garage parking. The townhome development will also be setback from the property line abutting residential uses on West Lilac Avenue.
PUBLIC NOTICING
Pursuant to the Government Code Section 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) and Reedley Municipal Code, §10-22, it is required that a notice be published in a newspaper and be sent to surrounding property owners. The public hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners on December 11, 2023, with a notice being published in the Mid-Valley Times on December 14, 2023.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 25, 2014, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) prepared for the proposed Reedley General Plan Update 2030 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR provides a comprehensive single programmatic environmental document that will allow the City of Reedley to carry out the General Plan Update and evaluates direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed GPU, as well as project alternatives in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Reedley has conducted an environmental analysis for the above-described project (Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16). The project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the EIR. Therefore, the City of Reedley, as the lead agency, proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The completed environmental impact checklist, the associated narrative, and any proposed mitigation measure(s) reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies, as well as research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist and initial study narrative combine to form the record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Act and Guidelines.
The City adopted the Fresno Council of Governments Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, dated January 2021 for preparation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for projects within the city of Reedley. Under the adopted guidelines, a project generating less than 500 daily trips can be considered a low VMT generator and can be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 81 daily trips, which is less than the adopted Fresno COG Guidelines' daily trip threshold of 500 daily trips. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis will not be required for the project.
The City of Reedley sent Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) notifications to California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for purposes of potential consultation regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. City staff followed up with each Native American Tribe that received notice to determine if consultation would be requested. None of the tribes requested consultation. In addition, Table Mountain Rancheria sent a certified letter acknowledging receipt of the SB 18 notification and declining consultation.
Pursuant to the CEQA Act and Guidelines, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the County of Fresno and with the California Office of Planning and Research, on
September 26, 2023. The comment period expired on Tuesday, October 31, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. During the comment period, staff received two comment letters, one from Comcast and the other from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Correspondence from both commenting agencies were made part of the project record.
With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the certified Program EIR prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030. The General Plan Update 2030 Program EIR is available for review on the Community Development Department's "Major Projects" page on the City of Reedley's website, which can be found at the following link:
(http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/Major ProjectsD and at the Reedley Community Development Department - Planning Division, located at 1733 9th Street, Reedley, CA 93654.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project applicant has paid all entitlement application fees including costs associated with the project's environmental analysis.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 2023-055
a. Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16
2. Resolution No. 2023-056
a. Exhibit A: Map of affected parcels related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 APNs: 365-220-80 and 365-220-81
3. Ordinance No. 2023-007
a. Exhibit A: Map of affected parcels related to Rezone Application No. 2021-07
4. Resolution No. 2023-057
a. Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
5. Proof of Publication and Mailing
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2023-16, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2023, PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-04, REZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-07, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2021-07
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 was submitted and pertains to re-designating two contiguous undeveloped parcels situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365- 220-81) from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Medium Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation; and WHEREAS, Rezone Application No. 2021-07 (Ordinance No. 2023-007) was submitted and pertains to re-designating two contiguous undeveloped parcels situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365- 220-80 and 365-220-81) from the R-1 (SP) (Single-Unit Residential) zone district designation to the RM-3 (Multi-Unit Residential) zone district designation; and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07 pertains to authorizing the construction of six two-story townhome duplexes developed as a Planned Unit Development consisting of twelve total dwelling units situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81 ). Each unit will be approximately 1,483 sq. ft. in size, and will consist of 3-bedrooms and 2- bathrooms with the proposed off-street parking consisting of 28 total spaces with a new driveway approach will be located on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04, Rezone Application No. 2021-07 (Ordinance No. 2023-005), and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07 were evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the City of Reedley hereby declares that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated September 26, 2023, has been prepared, posted and filed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15070-15075) by the City of Reedley as the Lead Agency; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment following the implementation of necessary mitigation measures, and that the prepared mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgement and analysis; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment following the implementation of necessary mitigation measures, and that the prepared mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgement and analysis; and Page j of2
WHEREAS, comments received from the public and other agencies were made part of the project record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley, at a Regular Meeting on January 9, 2024, held a public hearing to review the general plan amendment application, rezone application, conditional use permit application, and environmental assessment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley using their independent judgment hereby adopt Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16 based on the following:
1. The above recitals are true and correct; and
2. The City of Reedley Community Development Department has determined that Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated September 26, 2023, prepared for the project, is appropriate; and
3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.
This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted this 9th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Anita Betancourt, Mayor
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Attachment( s):
Exhibit A: Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
City of Reedley, Community Development Department, 1733 9th Street, Reedley, CA 93654 Notice of Intent to Adopt an
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 25, 2023
Public Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties
City of Reedley
Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA), as most recently amended, this is to advise that the City of Reedley (City) has prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the environmental effects of the project identified below:
Project Title: Kings View Residential Project
Project Sponsor: Ken Vang, Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers, 6839 South Buttonwillow Avenue, Reedley, CA 93654
Project Location: Northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 365-220-80 and 365-220-81.
Project Description: The proposed project would consist of the construction of 12 two-story townhouses in six buildings. The project would require rezoning the project site from One-Family Residential (R-1 [SP]) to Multi-Family Residential (RM-3) and a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application, Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review.
CEQA Project Status: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The IS/MND determined that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts, and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. The Public Review Draft IS/MND and all related analysis are available on the City's website: https://reedley.ca.gov/community-development-department/ceqa-environmentalassessments/ 9/25/23 1
Public Hearing: The City will consider the proposed project and IS/MND at a public meeting that has not been scheduled.
Public Review Period: A 30-day public review period will begin on September 25, 2023. Written comments must be mailed, faxed, submitted in person, or via email to the contact person identified below no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2023. Please direct comments to:
9/ 25/ 23
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Phone: 559-637-4200
Email: [email protected] .gov
2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
LSA
September 2023
This page intentionally left blank
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Rodney L. Horton, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, California 93654
Prepared by:
LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. 20231068
LSA
September 2023
This page intentionally left blank
INIT IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NE GAT IVE DE CLARA TIO N
SEPTEMBER 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENT I AL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALIFORN IA LSA
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....... ..... ... ......................... .. .... ................................................. .. ................. ........ i FIGURES AND TABLES ... ......... ..................... ...... .. ....... ... .. .......... ... .. ... ........ ... ........ ...... ... ........ .. ... ... .. ... ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................. ......... .... ............................................. iii
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 2-1
2.1 Determination .. .. ... ....... ...... ... ....... .. ........ ........ .... .. ... ...... ...... .. ......... ........................... ... 2-1
3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ..... ........ ... ... ......... ........ ..... ............. .. ..... ........................ .... .. ... ..... ..... .. ... ..... ... 3-1
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .. ............ .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .... ...... ... ... .... ......... .... .... ... 3-4
3.3 Air Quality .......... .. ....... ......... ........ ........ ......................... .... ...... ......... ....... ............. ........ 3-6
3.4 Biological Resources ... .................................................. ........ .. .......................... .......... 3-12
3.5 Cultural Resources ...... ............................................................................ .................... 3-19
3.6 Energy ........................................... .. ............. ...................... ... ............ ... ...................... 3-23
3.7 Geology and Soils ............ .............. .. ..... ......... ..... .. ... ... ... .. ...... ...... ..... ....... .......... ..... .... 3-27
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 3-31
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3-38
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ... .... ... .... ...... .......... ............ .. ............ ............... ........... .... 3-42
3.11 Land Use and Planning ............... .. ... ............. .. .... ... ...... ... .. .. ... .. ..... .... ..... .... ... .... ........... 3-49
3.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-50
3.13 Noise ......................................................................... ...... ............. ....... .. ............ .. ....... 3-51
3.14 Population and Housing ............. ....... ... ....................................... .. ................. .. ..... ..... . 3-60
3.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................ 3-62
3.16 Recreation ... .. ....... .... .... .... ...... ...... ........ ... .............. ... ........ ....... ... ..... ........ ....... ............ 3-65
3.17 Transportation ......................... ... ... ....... .......................................... ........ ...... ........... ... 3-66
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..... ..... .. ... ....................... ......... .............. ........ .. ... .... .. ............ 3-69
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .......... ........ .... .. ........... .. .... ......... ..... ........... ........... .... .... .. 3-71
3.20 Wildfire ....... ... ... ... .. ..... .... ..... .... .. .... .... _ ............ ... ....... ... ........ ..... .......... ... ..... ................ 3-76
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .. ....... .............. ......... ... .. ........................................ 3-78
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-3
APPENDICES
A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
B: NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
C: TRIP GENERATION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM D: AB 52 AND SB 18 CONSULTATION LETTERS
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\ Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/2 2/23) LSA
FIGURES
KIN GS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REE DLEY, CALI FORNIA
FIGURES AND TABLES
INIT IAL STUDY/ M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D EC LARATION
SEP TE MB ER 20 2 3
Figure 1-1: Regional and Local Context ... .. ... ... ............ .. .......... ... .. .. ....... .... ... .... ....... .... ... ..... .... .. .. ... 1-2 Figure 1-2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ... ..... ......... ... ...... ....... ..... 1-4 Figure 1-3: Site Plan .... .. ..... .... .. .. ... .... ... ... .. ............... .............. .. ............... ... .. .. .. ............. .. ............... 1-5 Figure 1-4: Floor Plan of Townhouse Unit ...... ... ...... ... .... ............................... ... .. ...... .... .. .. .. ... ... ... ... 1-6 Figure 1-5: Elevations of Residential Buildings .. .. ....................................... .... ... ..... .... ... ... .. .. ...... .... 1-7 Figure 1-6: Landscape Plan .... .... ....... ...... .... ..... ........ ........ .... ......... ... ....... ........ ...... ....... .... .. ............ 1-8 TABLES
Table 3.3.A: Project Construction Emissions (Tons per Year) ... ... .. .... ........ .. .. ...... .............. ... ... .... ... .. 3-8 Table 3.3.B: Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year) ............ ..................... ...... .... ... ... ............ 3-11 Table 3.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project ..... ... ... .... .... .... ........................ .... . 3-24 Table 3.8.A: Project Construction GHG Emissions ..... ... .. .... ........... ... .... .... ... ......................... ...... ... 3-32 Table 3.8.B: Operational GHG Emissions .. .... .... .... .... ... .... ............... ...... .......... .... ... .. ...... .. ............. . 3-33 Table 3.8.C: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs .... ................... ............................ ... ..... ........ ................ 3-34 Table 3.13.A: Allowable City-Wide Noise Exposure -Transportation ..... .......... .. .... ............. .......... 3-52 Table 3.13.B: Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Sources ........ .. ... .. ..... ... ... .. .... .... ....... .. .... ...... 3-52 Table 3.13.C: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria .. .... ... .. .... .... ...... ..... ...... ... 3-53 Table 3.13.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ... ... .......... ...... ....... ................... .. .... .... 3-54 Table 3.13.E: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ....... ..... ..... ... ... ... .... ......... 3-57 ii P:\202 31068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M N D\ Pub lic\ Kings _ View _ISM N D-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Draft.docx (09/ 22/ 23)
INITIAL ST UD Y/M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE DECLARA TION
SEPTE M BER 2023
KI NG S V IEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY , CALI FORNIA
AAQS
AB
AF
APN
BAAQMD
Basin Plan
BMPs
BPS
BRA
CAL FIRE
CalEEMod
CALGreen
Cal Recycle
Caltrans
CARB
CASQA
CCAP
CCR
CDFW
CEC
CEQA
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Assembly Bill
Acre Feet
Assessor Parcel Numbers
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Tulare Lake Basin
Best Management Practices
best performance standards
Biological Resources Assessment
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Green Building Standards Code
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
California Storm Water Quality Association
Climate Change Action Plan
California Code of Regulations
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Energy Commission
California Environmental Quality Act
methane
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu blic_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23) LSA
iii
LSA KINGS V IEW RESI DENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CAL IFORNIA
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2 0 2 3
CNDDB
CNPS
co
CRHR
DTSC
EO
EPA
EV
FEMA
FMMP
Fresno COG
General Plan PEIR
GHG
GPA
GPCD
GSA
GWP??
HCP
IMP
IPaC
ITE
KCUSD
iv
California Natural Diversity Data Base information
California Native Plant Society's
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
California Register of Historical Resources
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
electric vehicle
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Fresno Council of Governments
Reedley General Plan 2030 Program EIR
Greenhouse gas
General Plan Amendment
gallons per capita per day
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
global-warming potential
Habitat Conservation Plan
Integrated Master Plan
Information for Planning and Conservation
Institute of Tra nsport ation Engineers
Kings Canyon Unified School District
P :\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Ora ft. docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIG ATED N EGA TI VE DE CLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KING S VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALIFO RNIA
kWh
lead
LOS
LRA
LRA
mpg
MRZ
MS4
NAHC
NAHC
NCCP
NPDES
NPDES
O&M
OSHA
PG&E
PM10
PRC
PRC
PUD
kilowatt-hours
Pb
Level of Service
Local Responsibility Area
Local Responsibility Area
miles per gallon
Mineral Resource Zone
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
nitrous oxide
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Heritage Commission
Natural Community Conservation Plan
nitrogen dioxide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Operation and Maintenance
ozone
Occupational Safety and Health Adm inistration
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
Public Resources Code
Public Resources Code
Planned Unit Development
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M N D\Pub lic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _ Ora ft.docx (09/2 2/23) LSA
V
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
vi
R-1 (SP)
RFD
RM-3
ROG
RPO
RWQCB
SB
SCAQMD
SJVAB
SJVAPCD
SLF
SMAQMD
SMIP
SOI
SOx
SR-180
SUVs
SWPPP
TACs
TCR'
TIS Guidelines
USEPA
USFWS
One-Family Residential District
City of Reedley Fire Department
Multi-Family Residential
reactive organic gases
Reedley City Police Department
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Senate Bill
South Coast Air Quality Management District
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Sacred Lands File
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Stormwater Management Implementation Plan
sulfur dioxide
Sphere of Influence
sulfur oxides
State Route 180
sport utility vehicle
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
toxic air contaminants
Tribal Cultural Resources
Traffic Impact Studies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Fish and Wildlife Service's
P :\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\IS-M ND\Public\Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Ora ft.docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SEP TEM BER 2023
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WWTP Wastewater Treat ment Plant
ZE zero emission
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Publ ic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
KING S VIEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LE Y, (ALIFORN IA LSA
vii
LSA
viii
KINGS VI EW RESIDEN TIA L PROJE CT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITI GATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft. docx {09/22/23 )
INIT IAL STU DY/ M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE DEC LARATION
SEPTEMBER 202 3
KI NGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORN IA LSA
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Kings View Residential Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rodney L. Horton, Community Development Director
(559)637-4200,ext. 286
4. Project Location:
Northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 365-220-80 and 365-220-81.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Ken Vang
Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers
6839 South Buttonwillow Avenue
Reedley, CA 93654
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
One-Family Residential District (R-1 [SP])
8. Description of Project:
The proposed project would consist of the construction of 12 two-story townhouses in six buildings. The project would require rezoning the project site from One-Family Residential (R-1 [SP]) to Multi-Family Residential (RM-3) and a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application, Conditional Use Permit, and a Site Plan Review.
Project Site
The 0.9-acre project site is located on two parcels northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue in the City of Reedley, as shown in Figure 1-1.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23) 1-1 ~=====================--vY:...SJa o I e_y __ ::/w_e======================~ <(~, ! I I I ~ s f
~ r :-Slaoley:Ave-
~' ~ ~ £ • 0
:===-=----=---=--=--=----.....,u~ _______ I/Y.=l::!.uot.s_r:nao:::6Ye,::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-.::-~~~ ~----- 343 ft t:
~
:=========::'.ool~==========================!
-~ ~i-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:; ! LSA
FEET
(0'
(/)I
OJ~ _____ I/Y. ::_S_a_s __ ak_i:::6y_e _____ --, t;::=========::;i icI : I <:I! ~, II ~l ~hli!:::::= 1 =~ ~: ·~ I ~ ~
(/)~ :::======================-• (/)I \1\/: tilao 'sv_e~ ::==::· =============='.
FRESNO
COUNTY
Parlier
•
350
340ft
Project Vicinity
·;J.Pinuba
lc:::::::J! Projectlocation
SOURCE: Esri Community Maps
J:\20231068\GIS\Pro\Kings View Apartments Project\Kings View Apartments Project.aprx (8/31/2023) ===========_j:5=================::j ~;
E-C a rp_e r r-Av e
====E-Hrbert-Ave=======l
~----------E-[:) avis-Ave.=============-:::::
338ft
FIGURE 1-1
Kings View Residential Project
Project Location
I NIT IAL STUDY/M ITIGA TE D N EGA TI VE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALIFORN IA LSA
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site. Figure 1-2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project would consist of the construction of six, two-story multi-family residential buildings totaling approximately 8,898 square feet. Each proposed building would include two townhouse units that would be two-stories high, and each would be three-bedroom, twobathroom units. Each proposed unit would include a 4-kilowatt (kw) solar system. The maximum elevation of the proposed buildings would be approximately 25 feet. Figure 1-3 shows the site plan of the proposed project. Figure 1-4 shows the floor plan for the proposed buildings onsite.
Figure 1-5 shows the elevations proposed of the proposed buildings onsite. Additionally, the following improvements would be included as part of the proposed project: a total of 28 on-site parking spaces; open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities; exterior lighting, approximately 9,600 square feet of landscaped areas; and the construction of trash enclosures designed pursuant to City standards. The project would introduce approximately 13,695 square feet of impervious paved areas in the project site. Figure 1-6 shows the landscape plan for the project.
The proposed project would comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building measures and Title 24 standards.
Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be provided by four driveways: one 22-foot-wide ingress and egress driveway along the project site's frontage with South Frankwood Avenue; one 24-footwide driveway along South Frankwood Avenue providing vehicle access to the easternmost building; one 22-foot-wide ingress and egress driveway along the project site's frontage with Cyrier Avenue; and one 24-foot-wide driveway along Cyrier Avenue providing vehicle access to the westernmost building. Vehicle circulation within the project would be limited to one 22- foot-wide driveway on the northern portion of the project site connecting the two northernmost access driveways in the project site, and parking lot areas located in the eastern, western and middle portions of the project site. Pedestrian sidewalks to be constructed pursuant to City requirements along the project site's frontage with South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue, and through internal pathways and walkways in the project site.
The proposed project would also remove an existing chain link fence along the project site's northern boundary and an existing wooden fence along the project site's southern boundary and construct a 6-foot-high block wall along the project site's northern and southern boundaries. The proposed project would also install 6-foot-high wooden fences to section off and separate proposed landscaped areas and open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities to be constructed between proposed buildings.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 1-3 LSA
$ 80 160
FEET
SOURCE: Google Earth 2023
I :\20231068\G\Land_ Use.ai (6/14/2023)
LEGEND
~ Project Site Boundary
FIGURE 1-2
Kings View Residential Project
Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses I
I
SASAKI AVE I I 1
1 ' I '; /I I - -- - - -- ;- :nc;-i: sl \ I
LOT ~80
%:,~~;;'
-- )
, I
Ji
I.
t
~; ,~•/_ ,·1 ~
0 -• 'l' ) 1 j "''• ~•· / j 12s
1 l I 1 ·I '.::,/ ~ .,__,, ___,________ 12e, 1
~~:2ro~t R_,(sP)
' '
1 - 1--
~
f2
4 .81 .:,si21· ~ i
f--', •.•. -1-- 28.5' ==i ffVF120A0 I l,. LorJ299 ~• 57' ,os,;_2,(sP) ' ' I . -.1
I I :.11
PROJECT INFO: 1" = 20'
PROJECT LOCATION: AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF
APN:
GROSS ACREAGE:
S. FRANKWOOD A\/t.. AND W. LILAC AVE.
365-220-80 & 81
0.90 ACRES
NET ACREAGE: 0.90 ACRES
PROJECT OWNER: NASSRI JABER
MEGALOOON PROPERTIES, LLC
521 FlNLEY DR
TAFT, CA 93268
EXJSTING LANO USE: VACANT/OPEN SPACE
EXJSTING ZONING: R-1 (SP)
PROPOSED LAND USE: MEll!UM DENSlTY RESIDENTw. (
9- 15 DU/AC)
PROPOSED ZOl>ING: RM- 3
PROPOSED USE: 12 DU
PROPOSED DENSlTY: 13.3 OU/AC
LSA
$ 20 40
FEET
~
SOURC E: Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers, 2/9/ 2023
I :\ 202 31068\ G\Site_Pla n.ai (6/14/2023)
PARKING REQUIRED: 3.5 STALLS PER UNIT = 12 X 3.5 = 42 STALLS PARKING PROVIOCD: 28 STALLS
PARKING PROPOSED: 2.3 STALLS PER UNfT ANO PUD REQUEST NEEDED BUILDING 1: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 2: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 3: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 4: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 5: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 6: 1,483 SF
BUILDING TOTAL: 8,898 SF
PROPOSED PAVEMENT: 13,695 SF
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 9 ,601 SF
LEGEND
£
PUE
t77 /ZZJ
, .. -22c>-.. ,-.1(SP)
EASEMENTS
('";'\ EXISTING 12.5' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT \..::.,) OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED IN 2006 AS DOCUMENT NO. 0266544, O.R.F.C. ® EXISTING 12.5 IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2003, DOCUMENT NO. 0238427, O.R.F.C. (;;\ EXISTING 22.0' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REELDEY FOR STREET RIGHT '\:::.) OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED IN 2006 AS DOCUMENT NO. 0266544, 0 .R.F.C ® EXISTING 22.0' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2003, DOCUMENT NO. 0238427, O.R.F.C
INDICATES STREETS PREVIOUSLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
EXISTING PUE TO BE VACATED
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE/SECTION LINE
EASEMENT
PROPOSED LOT
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
I
II
l,t E
ii ! :
" I:
VICINITY MAP
I
I
I 1
I I
I
FIGURE 1-3
Kings View Residential Project
Site Plan
-
]:;
,,/JhJ
LOWER FLOOR
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers, 2/9/2023
I :\20231068\G\Floor _Plan_ Townhouse.ai (6/14/2023)
UPPER FLOOR
0 ::;
LJ
~
FIGURE 1-4
Kings View Residential Project
Floor Plan of Townhouse Unit
~
~
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
12.81 '
SOU RC E: Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers, 2/9/2023
I :\20231068\G\Elevations.a i (6/14/2023)
56'
52'
FRONT ELEVATION
39.05'
LEFT ELEVATION
26.24'
1g
ori
~· ~
~
l;;
~
~ ori
~
~
~ .;
10'
·, ·:•·
18.48'
"
~
;,,
3'
58'
38'
~I ..
·-.··,!!!
13.05'
56'
3 '
10'
tn·
.·a····:· _ ...
18.48'
-: ffi . ··w ·
BACK ELEVATION
39.05'
26.24'
37.01'
RIGHT ELEVATION
12.81'
z:
0 "'
FIGURE 1-5
Kings View Residential Project
Elevations of Residential Buildings
PLANTING LEGEND
SCIENTIFIC NAME£ COMMON NAME QTY WATERUSE
-P,:- j PISTACJAOIINfNSIS'KEffilOAVE.Y/ OllNESCPISTt.CHE -WR-, CERCISOCCIDENTALIS/WESTERt,REDBUD
-LM-j LAURELt~BlllS/BAYLAUREL
!£)0) I NERIUMOl.fAHDER~ETITEPINk'/ DWAAFOlEANDER
t~ I LOWANORA LONGIFOLIA. 'lOMLON' / LIME TUFF DWARF MATH RUSH 6-1§) / NANOINAOOfv1EST1CA 'GULFSTREAM'/IIEAVENLYDAMB00 ® OIITESIRIOIOIOESI\NDCVS./FORTNIGHTLILY
~l IRIS DOUGlASIANA/OOUGLAS IRIS
PROJECT INFO:
PRO-IECT LOCATICN: AT THE mRTH WEST CORHER OF
S. FRANl,W(('[J AVE. AJ11[1 W. ULA': AVE
APN· .365-220- 80 -~ 81
GROSS ACREAGE: 0. 90 ACRES
t,.IET ACREAGE: 0 90 ACRE·3
PROJECT OWIJER: ISASSRI JABER
ldEGALODON PROPERTIES. LU.:
52 1 FIMLE'i' OR
TAFT, CA 93~63
SHADE REQUIREMENT
THE PARl·UMG LOT SURFA(;E $HALL SE 50% SHADED WITHIN 15 ) EAR$ PARK.ll'IG LOT AREA: 13,695 SF±
5(,7,, TO BE SHADED: 6,848 SF±
SHADE PROVIDED
PISTACIA ( HIMEMSIS 'KEITH DAVE'!" / CHU·,J[5( PISTACH[ CERCIS OCCIDEMTAUS / WE5TERM REDBUD
LAUREL ,~0s1u s / 8A'1 LAUREL
TOTAL SHADE PROVIDED: 11.81l4 SF±
PERCEl.ff OF SHADE PROVIDED: 86.6% (REOUIRED 50% 1
2 ,'.tj, 1 .~57 5F±
-l @ 45:• SF±
£@ 1.:?5 7 5F±
PP(1JECT LC•CATIC,/II T
lll!wl~rr
~F'.)
m MYOPORUM PM3' Tl<IN
\IIFOllU
KLA/'0SCAP
M'PROSTRi\
(MULCli
"TUM' / MVOPORUM VICINITY MAP
~
I ---171 I
l I : ~ ' ' ' --------- ' ~ , , ~ ' ,,,-----, ' /-----,,, ' ~I 1 I, •' __ _ -:;:: - \.iii ~ ---:-: . _- -: ..- 'J@ ·1i - -- , ":" -- ,£.-.-...,w 'ii.._,1 - - ·-r ·1- - ·. ---,----- ----::::-Ej_ ~[ll-!!]--;-> rff' ~-.- .- -·-:\ h I ~ !ITT~ , ,,
I ~... , - / \ 1 \ 1/ \ 1 \ ,,. \ "' J I ; I ' . _, '- - '-., - '-. ~ '-.
I I
u ~: j _ -r _ --:~".:....---_,,. . ------_.,/ _________ _,,." I , _______ _,,. , . ___ _, ' 11(~ J ~ I • '·v1. I : I I a: w I l I
I G I _.,.- c--·
: ~-+( 'ff "'" ..-~~'
I ·····-----(
I
I
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
,..,'s.J ,.,- "' _,,,.·
~,' ..1
I
I
7 I
I
~I <( I
~I ~ I
I I
I
I
I
I\
FIGURE 1-6
SOURC E: Vang Inc. Consulting Engi neers, 2/ 9/2023
Kings View Residential Project
Landscape Plan
I :\ 20231068\G\Landscape_Pla n .ai (6/14/ 2023)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC LARA TION
SEPTEMBER 20 2 3
Utilities and Infrastructure
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL P RO JEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
Water supply and wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Reedley. The proposed project would connect to an existing 8-inch water main and existing 20-inch wastewater main in Cyrier Avenue.
The City of Reedley would provide stormwater management services to the project site. The proposed project would include the removal of the existing curb along the project frontage with Cyrier Avenue, as well as the construction of a new curb and gutter along the project frontage to Cyrier and South Frankwood Avenues. Stormwater from the project site would be collected through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure onsite towards proposed and existing stormwater collection and drainage infrastructure along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues.
Access for emergency response services including fire, police, and medical response services, would be provided through the four proposed driveways along Cyrier Avenue and South Frankwood Avenue. Dedicated fire lanes would also be provided pursuant to requirements of the Reedley Fire Department (RFD).
Solid waste collection for the proposed project would be managed by Mid Valley Disposal, which maintains all solid waste collection in the City.
Electricity services would be provided by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
Telecommunication services for the project would be provided by either AT&T or Comcast. No natural gas connections or diesel backup generators would be included with the project.
Project Construction
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over a total 12-month period starting May 2024 and ending May 2025. In addition, the proposed project would include approximately 3,000 cubic yards of soil import, and no soil export.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The 0.9-acre project site is located in the City of Reedley, on the northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
• City of Reedley- Rezone and General Plan Amendment; Site Plan Review; PUD; water service and wastewater sewage service connection
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMND-Publ ic_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 1-9
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
I NI TIAL STUDY /MI TIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 20 2 3
• State Water Resources Control Board - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (with requisite Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and Permanent Control Measures)
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?? In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, on September 18, 2023, the City sent letters regarding the proposed project to the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria based on the list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The 30-day consultation period for AB 52 is currently ongoing.
1-10 P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUDY/ M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE D ECLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA LSA
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALL V 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 in Chapter 3.0.
D Aesthetics D Agriculture and Forestry Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources
D Geology/Soils D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
D Hydrology/Water Quality D Land Use/Planning
D Noise
D Recreation
D Population/Housing
D Transportation
D Energy
D Hazards & Hazardous Materials
D M ineral Resources
D Public Services
D Tribal Cultural Resources
D Utilities/Service Systems • Wildfire D Mandatory Findings of Significance
2.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
l:8J 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.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required .
I if/If/. 1
'-Digitally signed by
., R~'dney L. Horton . ' ,J
-------------~--- - '·_.·, Date:_1_2/_1_8/_23 _______________ _ Signature Date
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pu blic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23 ) 2-1 LSA
2-2
KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL STUDY/ M ITI GATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P :\2023 1068 Kings View\ PR ODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Pub lic\ Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Ora ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/MITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARATION
SEPTEMBE R 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENT IAL PROJECT
CI TY OF REED LEY, CALIFORNIA LSA
3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1 AESTHETICS
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a 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?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3.1.1 Impact Analysis
•
•
•
•
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant landscape feature . According to the Reedley General Plan 2030 Program EIR (General Plan PEIR}, the City identifies views of agricultural land from the urban fringes of the City, views of the Sierra Nevada mountain range east of the City, and views of the Kings River corridor, located along the western edge of the City, as potentially scenic vistas. 1 The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is located near Reedley City limits, and partially obstructed views of agricultural land located outside City limits but within the City's Sphere of Influence {SOI} may be seen from the project site. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains may also be visible from the project site. The proposed project would develop the 0.9-acre project site into a 12-unit multi-family residential development. Although implementation of the proposed project would change the existing vacant state of the project site into a multi-family residential use, the proposed residential use of the project site would be similar to existing residential uses south, east and north of the site and therefore, the addition of 12 townhouses at the project site would not substantially change views from public vista points.
Additionally, the proposed townhouse units to be constructed at the project site would be consistent in size and scale to similar existing residential units in the vicinity of the project site and City of Reedley. 2013. Draft Program EIR, Reedley General Plan 2030, SCH #2010031106. January 8.
Website : https:// reed ley.ca .gov /wp-content/upl oa ds/reed leywe b/2019/12/Draft-Program-EI R-City-ofReed ley-G enera I-Pl a n-1-8-2013. pdf (accessed June 2023}.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-1
LSA KINGS VIEW RES ID EN TIAL PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INIT IAL STUDY/MITI GATED N EGA TIVE D ECLA RATION
SEP TEM BER 2023
would not introduce oversized elements that could obstruct distant views of the Sierra Nevada and foothills, or limited views of agricultural land. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on scenic vistas, and the impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2 mapping of State Scenic Highways, there are no state-designated scenic highways in the City of Reedley. However, State Route 180 (SR-180}, an Officially Designated State Scenic Highway, is located 9.55 miles northeast of the project site. Additionally, SR-168, an Eligible State Scenic Highway, is located approximately 21.65 miles northwest of the project site, in the City of Clovis. No Officially Designated or Eligible State Scenic Highways are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway or impact scenic resources located within the highway segments or its viewshed.
Therefore, no impact on scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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 a 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 would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site. The proposed project would change the existing vacant state of the project site into a multi-family residential use. The project site is currently marked for residential development, as it is designated Low Density Residential in the City's General Plan and zoned within the City's OneFamily Residential District (R-1 [SP]}. The proposed project would require a rezone to Multi-Family Residential (RM-3} and a General Plan Amendment (GPA} to Medium Density Residential. The Project Applicant would comply with the City's GPA and rezone requirements, as well as development standards required for the proposed zoning. Additionally, the multi-family residential buildings to be constructed on the project site would be consistent in size and scale to existing residential units to north, south and west of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality in the City and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site and its surroundings, and the impact would be less than significant. 3-2
California Department ofTransportation {Caltrans). n.d. State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca. gov/ programs/ design/I a p-la ndsca pe-a rch itectu re-and-comm u nity-liva bil ity /I a p-1 iv-i-scen ic-highways (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SE PTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY Of REEDLE Y, CALI FORNIA LSA
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated uses and infrastructure. The construction of new buildings and infrastructure would introduce new sources of light into the project site and vicinity. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards would reduce potential light and glare impacts. Furthermore, the City's General Plan and Municipal Code outlines performance standards related to exterior lighting to reduce impacts from new light sources.
Title 10, Zoning Regulations, from the City's Municipal Code includes lighting regulations for off street parking, signs, and residential areas to deflect light away from adjoining properties and prevent light spillage, glare, or annoyance to persons on or inside adjoining properties or to public or private rights of way. Additionally, as described in Chapter 19, Site Plan Review, of the Municipal Code, proposed lighting would need to be arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties in compliance with applicable legislative policies relating to traffic safety, street dedications and street improvements and environmental quality. Additionally, Policy COSP 4.8.7 of the General Plan prohibits continuous all-night outdoor lighting of construction sites, which would limit construction activities to daylight hours, reducing potential impacts related to nighttime glare.
Required compliance with these regulations would ensure that light and glare from the project would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Additionally, the new sources of light and glare introduced by the proposed project would be comparable to the existing light and glare emitted by residential uses located north, west and south of the project site. Therefore, the adverse impacts related to light and glare resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Publ ic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-3
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIA L PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FORNIA
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
INIT IAL STUDY /M ITIGA TED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEM BER 2023
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 the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring • • • Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? • • • c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section • • • 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land • • • C2l to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of • • • C2l Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
3.2.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland1 Unique Farmland1 or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency1 to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is located in the City of Reedley and it's bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site. The project site is also classified as "Urban and Built-Up Land" by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program {FMMP) 3
. Implementation of the proposed project would not
3-4
California Department of Conservation (DOC}. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Website :
https://maps.conservation .ca .gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PR ODUCTS\ IS-MND\ Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUDY/M ITIGA TED N EGA TI VE D EC LARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KI NGS VIEW RES IDEN TIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
result in the conversion of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use. As such, the proposed project would result in no impacts to Important Farmland. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is currently zoned within the City's One-Family Residential District (R-1 [SP]). The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, resulting in no impact. c. Would the project 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 project site is located within an existing urban area and is zoned within One-Family Residential District (R-1 [SP]) within the City of Reedley. The project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to 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)), and no mitigation is required.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is located in an existing urban area and is currently vacant and undeveloped. There is no existing forest land within the project site, and the site is not zoned as forest land. The proposed project would not convert forest land to non-forest use and would result in no impact to the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no mitigation is required.
e. Would the project 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. Please refer to discussions a) and c) of this section. The project site is located within an existing urban environment and would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no mitigation is required.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-5
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PRO JECT
CITY Of REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
3.3 AIR QUALITY
I NI TIAL ST UDY/M IT IGATED NEG ATI VE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? •
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air • quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? •
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? •
3.3.1 Impact Analysis
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
~
~
~
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
~
No
Impact
•
•
•
•
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Reedley is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulation within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region.
Both the State and the federal government have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and suspended particulate matter (PM2.s and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as non-attainment for 0 3 and PM2.s for federal standards and non-attainment for 03, PM10, and PM2.s for State standards.
CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the SJVAB into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard in December 2022 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.
To ensure the SJVAB's continued attainment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) PM10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by 3-6 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft. docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE DE CLARATION
SEPTE MBER 20 23
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL PRO JECT
CI TY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FO RN IA LSA
human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.s standards to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.s standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012.
For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would further reduce construction dust impacts. As discussed below, long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project, including area, energy, and mobile source emissions, would also not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project's potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant with mitigation.
b. Would the project 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The SJV AB is designated as nonattainment for 03 and PM2.s for federal standards and non-attainment for 0 3, PM 10, and PM2.s for State standards. The SJVAPCD's non-attainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant.
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project' s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality cond itions .
Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.
Short-Term Construction Emissions. 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, NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG), directly emitted particulate matter (PM 2.s and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.
Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction-related effects on air qual ity 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 tempora rily generate particulate emissions. Sources of P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-7
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NIT IAL STUDY/M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE D ECLA RATION
SE PTEMBER 202 3
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. PM 10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment.
Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
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). 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, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot particulate (PM2.s 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.
The SJVAPCD has established construction emissions thresholds on an annual basis as shown in Table 3.3.A below. Construction emissions for the proposed project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in May 2024 and continue for a period of 12 months, ending in May 2025. This analysis assumes the use of Tier 2 construction equipment. Construction of the proposed project would include the import of 3,000 cubic yards of soil, which is included in this analysis. Other precise details of construction activities are unknown at this time; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction worker and truck trips and fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used.
Construction-related emissions are presented in Table 3.3.A. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.
Table 3.3.A: Project Construction Emissions (Tons per Year) Construction Year
2024
2025
Maximum Annual Construction Emissions
SJVAPCD Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
Source: LSA (July 2023).
CO= ca rbon monoxide
NOx = nitrogen oxides
ROG
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.0 No
PM 2.s = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less th an 10 microns in size NOx co SOx PM10 PM2.s
0.9 0.7 <0.1 0.1 <0 .1
0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
0.9 0.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0
No No No No No
ROG= reactive organ ic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollut ion Control Di strict SOx = sulfur oxides
3-8 P :\202 31068 Kings View\ PROD UCTS\IS-M N D\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Review _ Ora ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
IN IT IAL STUD Y/ MITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARAT ION
SEPTEMBE R 2023
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDL EY, CALIF ORN IA LSA
As shown in Table 3.3.A, construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD threshold for annual construction emissions for the proposed project. In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VII I measures for dust control during construction. These control measures are intended to reduce the amount of PM10 emissions during the construction period. Implementation of the fugitive dust control measures outlined in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure that the proposed project complies with Regulation VIII and further reduces the short-term construction period air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 Consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions}, the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed project and implemented at the construction site:
• 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.
P:\202 31068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Pu b lic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-9
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DENTIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORN IA
INIT IAL STUDY /M ITI GATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.
Long-Term Operational Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment).
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 PM emission processes.
Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with dieselpowered vehicles.
Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. However, the proposed project would not include natural gas and no natural gas demand is anticipated during operation of the proposed project.
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 emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.
Emission estimates for operation of the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 3.3.B. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were based on the project's trip generation estimate, as identified in Section 3.17, Transportation. As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 81 average daily trips.
The primary emissions associated with the proposed project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project; emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table 3.3.B.
The results shown in Table 3.3.B indicate the proposed project's operational emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, or PM2.s emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. 3-10 P :\2023 1068 Kings View\ PROD UCTS\IS-M N D\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Review _Drah.docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IA L STUDY/MITIGATED N EGA TI VE DE CLARATION
SE PTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RESIDENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CAL IFORNIA
Table 3.3.B: Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year) ROG NOx co SOx PM10
Mobile Source Emissions 0.1 0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1
Area Source Emissions <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Operation Emissions 0.1 0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.1
SJVAPCD Sign ificance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gas
LSA
PM2.s
<0.1
<0.1
0.0 <0.1
15.0 No
Source: LSA (July 2023).
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM 2.s = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOx = sulfur oxides
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors include single-family residences located immediately south of the project site, which are located less than 10 feet away.
Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i .e., usually dieselfueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Project construction emissions would be below the SJV APCD significance thresholds. Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a significant source of long-term operational emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed uses t hat would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during project construction or operation, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required .
P:\202 31068 Kings View\PROD UCTS\ 15-M N D\ Pu blic\Kings _ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-11
LSA KINGS VIEW RE SIDEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA
3.4 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?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation pol icy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3.4.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
INIT IAL STU DY /M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTE MBER 2023
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
LSA conducted a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) 4 to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources . The following summarizes the resources and methods used to assess the project site, and findings of the BRA.
3.4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley floor in Fresno County.
The project site is relatively flat with little topographic variation and is at approximately 340 feet above mean sea level in elevation. There are no drainage features, depressional wetlands, or riparian areas present in the project site or immediate surroundings. The project site is currently undeveloped and contains one electric transformer in the southeast corner. According to historic aerial imagery, the project site has remained in its current condition for more than 20 years. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by LSA. 2023b. Biological Resources Assessment for the Kings View Residential Project located in City of Reedley, Fresno County, California . August 1.
3-12 P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx {09/22/23) I NIT IAL 5TUD Y/M ITIGA TE D NEG ATIVE DECLARA TI ON
SE PTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL PROJECT
CITY Of REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site. Some lands in the vicinity of the project site are fallow/vacant lots; however, most of the lands are developed with a mixture of commercial developments, schools, and residential uses. There are no undisturbed open spaces in the vicinity of the project site.
3.4.1.2 Literature Review and Records Search
LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald conducted a literature review and records search on June 29, 2023, to identify the existence and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special-status plant and animal species in the project vicinity. Database records reviewed included the following :
• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB - RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game. This database covers sensitive plant and animal species, as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California . Records from nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project area (Orange Cove North Wahtoke/ Sanger/ Monson Orange Cove South/ Burris Park/ Reedley/ Traver/ and Selma), along with a query of records within a 5-mile radius of the project site, were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which uses four specific categories or "lists" of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources . Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation {IPaC) Online System, which lists all proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species managed by the Endangered Species Program of the USFWS that have the potential to occur on or near a particular site. This database also lists all designated critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, and migratory birds that could potentially be impacted by activities from a proposed project. An IPaC Trust Resource Report 5 was generated for the project site. • Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site 6.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS}. 2023a. Environmental Conservation Online System {ECOS). Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resou rces Report . June 2023. Website:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ (accessed May 2023}.
USFWS. 2023b. USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons. Website : http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed May 2023}.
P:\ 20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ 15-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-13
LSA KINGS V IEW RESIDENT IAL PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INIT IAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously identified in the survey area 7 . • eBird: eBird is a real-time, online checklist program launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society. It provides rich data sources for basic information on bird abundance and distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. eBird occurrence records within the project sites and a 5-mile radius around the project site were reviewed in July 2023 (eBird 2023).
In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed, including City of Reedley General Plan Policies COSP4.13.l through COSP4.13.20 which relate to protection and conservation of sensitive and special-status habitats and species in the City's Planning Area.
3.4.1.3 Field survey
A general biological survey of the project site was conducted by LSA Biologist Kelly McDonald on July 12, 2023. The project site was surveyed on foot, and all biological resources observed were noted and mapped.
3.4.1.4 Findings
The project site is strictly upland in nature with dominant vegetation consisting of ruderal vegetation. There are no trees or shrubs located within the project site. Much of the soil and vegetation within the project site is disturbed from tilling and agricultural practices. Ongoing soil disturbance and the resulting competitive exclusion by invasive nonnative plants limit the potential for native flora to occur in the project site. No native or special-status vegetation communities exist in the project site.
No riparian habitat exists in the project site or on adjacent parcels and there are no depressional wetlands (e.g., vernal pools) or natural drainage features within the project site. The project site does not serve as a wildlife nursery or as a wildlife migration corridor.
A total of six wildlife species were observed on or near the project site during the July 2023 survey, including: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus; non-native species), rock pigeon ( Columbo livia; non-native species), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Each of the wildlife species observed commonly occur in and around developed areas throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
The literature review identified 20 special-status plant species that are known to occur within a nine-quad area surrounding the project. The majority of the rare plant species that were identified USFWS. 2023c. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Online Mapper Tool. Website: https://www. fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed May 2023).
3-14 P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/MITIGATED N EGATI VE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KIN GS VIE W RESIDENT IAL PRO JEC T
CITY Of REED LEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
in the databases have specialized habitat requirements (e.g., they occur on predominantly alkaline soils, vernal pools, riparian, or wetland habitats) that do not occur within the project site.
The project site contains marginal habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and avian nesting habitat. While no special-status animal species (or signs of such species) were observed on site during the July 2023 survey, California ground squirrel burrows that could be used by burrowing owl were observed in portions of the project site. None of the burrows observed in the project site exhibited features typical of occupied burrowing owl burrows at the time of the survey, although there is some potential for use by this species in the future. Potentially significant direct and/or indirect impacts, including mortality, harassment, or other forms of incidental take, could occur if construction-related ground disturbance occurs in or around an occupied burrow.
While only limited habitat for ground-nesting birds and birds that may nest in the annual herbaceous cover onsite exists on the project site, birds using the project site and immediate surroundings could be subjected to indirect disturbances during construction. Nesting birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 15 through September 15) have potential to result in the direct or indirect take of nesting birds.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in the City of Reedley, is approximately 0.9-acre in size and is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site. The project site does not contain critical habitat that could support candidate, sensitive or special-status species. Furthermore, no special-status species have been identified within the project site or in the vicinity of the site. However, the project site has limited nesting habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). As such, project implementation could potentially impact burrowing owl. If unmitigated or unavoidable, these potential impacts on burrowing owl could be considered potentially significant. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, which would require conducting pre-construction surveys and implementing measures such as avoidance, den excavation and passive relocation, would prevent or compensate for impacts on special-status species. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 related to 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.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1 A preconstruction clearance survey is required for burrowing owl no more than 30 calendar days prior to initiation of project activities.
All survey results must be delivered to the City of Reedley. If an active burrowing owl burrow is found within the project site, the P:\20231068 Kings View\PROOUCTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMNO-Publ ic_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-15
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUD Y/MITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 20 2 3
Project Applicant must coordinate with CDFW to obtain applicable agency approval/direction prior to any ground disturbance activities on the site. Specific avoidance, den excavation, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation activities shall be performed as required by CDFW. If no active burrowing owl burrows are identified, project activities may proceed as planned following the preconstruction survey.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Habitat values of the project site have been severely diminished due to periodic site disturbance associated with tilling and agricultural activities. Review of historic and current aerial imagery of the project area, as well as the field survey conducted at the project site for the BRA determined that no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation by the CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) are present on the site. Designated critical habitat, sensitive natural communities, and other sensitive habitats are absent from the project site and adjacent lands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to 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.
c. Would the project 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. No aquatic resources occur within the project site, or within the vicinity of the project site. As a result, no impact would occur related to a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d. Would the project 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site does not contain any features that would function as wildlife movement corridors for resident or migratory wildlife species.
However, the project site does contain suitable avian nesting habitat for ground-nesting species that may use existing burrows onsite and other birds that may nest in the annual herbaceous cover covering the site. Nearly all native birds are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 15 through September 15) have potential to result in the mortality/disturbance of nesting birds. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, which requires preparation of a burrowing owl preconstruction survey, 3-16 P :\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM N D-Public_Review _Drah.docx (09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TIO N
SEPTEMBE R 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PRO JECT
CITY OF RE EDLEY, CALIFORNIA LSA
establishing buffers and avoidance of active nests, would effectively mitigate any impacts on burrowing owls to less-than-significant levels. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measure B1O-2, which requires conduction of a preconstruction survey prior vegetation removal and construction occurring during bird nesting season (February 15 through September 15), as well as implementation of buffer zones around active nests, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to substantially interfering with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Mitigation Measure B10-2 If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 5 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active by the qualified biologist. Documentation of all survey results shall be provided to the City of Reedley. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the BRA, the project would not confl ict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources . Though the proposed project is subject to local policies from the General Plan for the City of Reedley and the Fresno County General Plan related to biological resources, the project would comply with applicable requirements from local policies and ordinances. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the existing ordinances and impacts would be less than significant.
f. Would the project 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 PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. This HCP covers PG&E activities which occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The Reedley Planning Area is not located within the boundaries of any approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or State HCP.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-17
LSA KINGS VI EW RESIDEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL STU DY /M IT IGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTE MBER 2023
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E O&M HCP, or any other an adopted HCP or NCCP and the proposed project would have no impact. 3-18 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INITIAL STUD Y/MIT IGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARAT ION
SE PTEMBER 2 023
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
3.5.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORNIA
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
LSA
No
Impact
•
•
•
LSA Associates, Inc. prepared an Archeological Resources Assessment8 for the proposed project to assess potential impacts to cultural resources. The following impact discussion summarizes the study and results.
Records Search. A record search was conducted for the project area by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC No. 22-1367). One previous cultural resources study was found to have included a portion of the project area. No records of known archeological sites were found in the project site or within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site.
Field Survey. A field survey of the project site was conducted on June 19, 2023, by LSA archaeologist Neal Kaptain. The project area is covered with ruderal vegetation that afforded limited visibility of the ground's surface. An area of imported fill in the southeast corner of the project area completely prevented visibility of the ground's surface. The survey was conducted by walking parallel east/west transects no more than 6 meters apart. Rodent burrows were examined for evidence of subsurface archaeological deposits, and a garden hoe was used to scrape aside vegetation to expose the ground's surface at 10-meter intervals along the survey route. No prehistoric or historic period cultural resources were observed during the survey. There are no resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources within the project site.
Sacred Land File Search. LSA requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 30, 2023. The NAHC responded on June 26, 2023, with negative results for records of resources of Native American origin for the project area. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the sign,ficance of a historical resource pursuant to §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 (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources LSA. 2023a . Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Kings View Residential Project, Reedley, Fresno County, California {LSA Project No. 20321068}. July 10.
P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODU CTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-19
LSA KING S V IEW RESIDEN TI AL P ROJECT
CIT Y OF REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA
I NITIAL STUDY/ M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEP TEM BER 2023
as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.l(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.l(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project's lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built-environment resources and archaeological sites.
No historical resources have been identified in the project site. However, impacts to historical resources could occur as a result of development in undeveloped land. To reduce potential impacts on potentially undiscovered historical resources in the project site, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 shall be implemented. This mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered resources to a less than significant level by consulting with a qualified historical resources specialist and implementing applicable mitigation measures to protect resources found during project construction .
Mitigation Measure CUL-1
3-20
If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop within SO feet 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 of Reedley 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.S of the CEQA Guidelines.
If the resources are determined to be unique archeological resources as defined under Section 15064.S(c)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and recommended to the Lead Agency.
Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of green space, parks, or open space in undeveloped areas of the project site, or data recovery excavations of the finds .
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the protection measures. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a Lead Agency-approved institution or person who is capable of provid ing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. A report of findings shall also be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.
P :\20231068 Kings View\PROD U CTS\ IS-M N D\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pub! ic_Review _Ora ft .do ex (09/22/23 )
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGA TE D N EGA TIVE D EC LARA TION
SEP TEM BER 2023
KI NGS VIEW RES IDE NTIAL P RO JEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA .LSA
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(l), "When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource ... " Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as "unique archaeological resources" pursuant to California PRC Section 21083.2. Archaeological cultural resources identified during project construction shall be treated by the City in consultation with a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 as identified above in the discussion for a). With implementation of these measures, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. If human remains are identified during project construction, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code shall apply, as appropriate. In addition, the project would comply with Mitigation Measure CU L-2, which requires notifying the County Coroner and other relevant parties in the event that human remains are found during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to unknown human remains to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pu rsuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant 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 Project Applicant 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 Project Applicant has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their P:\20231068 Kings View\PRO DU CTS\ IS-M N D\Pu blic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-21 LSA
3-22
KINGS VI EW RESI DENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
I NITIAL STUD Y/MITIG ATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The Project Applicant shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM NO-Publ ic_Revi ew _Ora ft.docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M IT IGATE D NEGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTE M BER 2023
3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resou rces during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
3.6.1 Impact Analysis
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CAL IFORN IA
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Significant
Impact
LSA
No
Impact
•
•
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity, diesel fuel, and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.
Construction-Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over approximately 12 months. The proposed project would require grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction.
Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of construction materials, preparation of the site for demolition and grading activities, and construction of the residences. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State's available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact during project construction.
Operational Energy Use. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with electricity consumption and fuel used for vehicle and truck trips associated with the project. The proposed project would not include natural gas and no natural gas demand is anticipated during operation of the proposed project. Energy consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod.
In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed project would result in approximately 189,498 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for lightduty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-23
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF R EEDLEY, CALIFORN IA
I NITIAL ST UDY/ M ITI GATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020. 9 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty
trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021. 10 Therefore, using the average fuel economy estimates for 2020 and 2021 the proposed project would result in the consumption of approximately 6,509 gallons of gasoline and 5,053 gallons of diesel.
Table 3.6.A shows the estimated potential increased electricity demand fuel consumption associated with the proposed project.
Table 3.6.A: Estimated Annual Energy Use of Proposed Project Electricity Use Natural Gas Use Gasoline Consumption Diesel Fuel Consumption (kWh per year) (therms per year) (gallons per year) (gallons per year) 69,850 0.0 6,509 5,053
Source : LSA (July 2023).
kWh= kilowatt-hours
As shown in Table 3.6.A, the estimated potential increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project is 69,850 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In 2021, Fresno County consumed 8,378 gigawatt hours (GWh) or 8,378,047,292 kWh .
11 Therefore, electricity demand associated with the
proposed project would be less than 0.1 percent of Fresno County's total electricity demand.
In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. As shown above in Table 3.6.A, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would consume approximately 6,509 gallons of gasoline and 5,053 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 157 million gallons of diesel and approximately 372 million gallons of gasoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in Fresno County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Fresno County by less than 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by less than 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage.
In addition, proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings.
10 11
U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT). n.d. "Table 4-23 : Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles." Website : https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed July 2023).
Ibid.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca .gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed July 2023). 3-24 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft. docx (09/22/23 )
INIT IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DE CLARATION
SE PTEMB ER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL PR OJEC T
CITY Of REEDLE Y, CALIFORN IA LSA
PG&E is the private utility that would supply the proposed project's electricity and natural gas services. In 2021, a total of 50 percent of PG&E' s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy. 12 PG&E reached California's 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017, and is positioned to meet the State's 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact during project operation. As such, the proposed project would not result in a potential significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. No mitigation is required.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission (ZE) vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The most recently CEC adopted energy report is the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report 13 • The Integrated Energy Policy Reports provide the results of the CEC's assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California . Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Reports cover a broad range of topics, including implementation of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.
As indicated above, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation . Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed 12 Pacific Gas & Electric Company {PG&E}. 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. https://www.pge.com/ en_ US/ a bout-pge/ environ ment/wh at-we-are-doing/ clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions. page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed July 2023}.
13 CEC. 2023. 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commi ssion. Docket# 23-IEPR-0l.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\ Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-25
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INIT IAL ST UDY/M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
project's total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not confl ict with California's energy conservation plans as described in the CEC's Integrated Energy Policy Reports. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 3-26 P :\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Public \Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_ Review _Ora ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
I NITIAL STUDY/MIT IGATED N EGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
3.7 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?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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?
d. 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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
3.7.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
• ~
• ~
• ~
• ~
• ~
• ~
•
• •
~ •
LSA
No
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
•
a. Would the project 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. Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., within the past 11,000 years). AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area . The project site is not located within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 14 In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault 14 California DOC. 2021. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application . Website : https ://www. conservation.ca .gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp (accessed June 2023}.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\1 5-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-27
LSA KINGS V IEW RESIDEN TIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INITI AL STUD Y/ M IT IGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
traces are located in the vicinity of the project site. The closest active faults to the project site are the Nunez Fault, located approximately 60.5 miles southwest of the site, and the Independence Fault, located approximately 65 miles northeast of the site. Due to the distance of these known faults, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Therefore, potential impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Reedley Planning Area is within Seismic Zone 3. This area is characterized as having a relatively thin section of sedimentary rock overlying granite. In this zone, the amplification of shaking that would affect low-to-medium rise structures is relatively high. 15 However, there are no known active faults located within the Reedley Planning Area or the immediate vicinity. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24 CCR) would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would minimize or eliminate potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects related to strong seismic ground shaking. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire "mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. The General Plan EIR identifies that the potential for groundfailure hazards such as subsidence, settlement and liquefaction is considered minimal in the Reedley Planning Area. Furthermore, compliance with the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides typically occur in areas that experience ground shaking, are typically wet and/or have steep slopes. Due to the distance from known active faults, ground shaking potential in the project area is relatively low. The project site is generally flat area and is not located next to any hills, rivers, creeks or unlined canals that could increase the risk of landslides.
Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant.
15 City of Reedley. 2014. General Plan 2030. February 18. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wp-content/ uploads/reed I eyweb/2019 /12/Reedl ey-G ene ral-PI a n-2030-Adopted-Februa ry-18-2014-1. pdf ( accessed June 2023).
3-28 P :\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\IS-M N D\Public\Kings_ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Review _Dra ft.docx {09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUDY/ M ITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALIFORNIA LSA
b, Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. However, this impact would not be substantial because the project is required to comply with water quality control measures, which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion . Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. Impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in discussion a) in this section, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Sh rink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. The project site contains Handford sandy loam, soil which has a low shrink-swell potential. 16 Compliance with California Building Code requ irements would ensure the implementation of design features that would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less than significant impact. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. Wastewater sewage services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Reedley. The proposed project would connect to existing wastewater service infrastructure along Cyrier Avenue. Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project Applicant would pay applicable service connection fees to connect to the City's public sewer system, as required by Section 8-3-2 of the 16 Natural Resources Conservation Service {NRCS) . n.d . Web Soil Survey. Website: https://websoilsurvey. nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\15-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISMND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-29
LSA KINGS VI EW RESIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUD Y/MI TIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
Reedley Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources are afforded protection under CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature . PRC Section 5097 .5 also specifies that the unauthorized removal or damage of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. The California Penal Code Section 622.5 also sets penalties for removal or damage of paleontological resources.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. As such, there is potential for undiscovered paleontological resources to be discovered in the undeveloped areas of the project site during construction activities. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 would serve to protect the accidental discovery of paleontological resources. As such, a less than significant impact with mitigation would occur.
Mitigation Measure GE0-1
3-30
If any potentially significant paleontological resources are discovered during grading activities, all construction activities shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a certified professional paleontologist shall provide recommendations and mitigation measures to protect the resource.
If a potentially significant resource is encountered, then the qualified professional paleontologist, the City of Reedley, and the Project Applicant sha ll arrange for either (1) total avoidance of the resource or (2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the City of Reedley as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EG AT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEM BER 2023
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the em issions of greenhouse gases?
3.8.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
KI NGS VIEW RES IDE NTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF RE EDLEY, CALI FO RN IA
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
•
•
LSA
No
Impact
•
•
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions1 either directly or indirectly1 that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N 2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SFG)
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others rema in in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere ("atmospheric lifetime").
The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Pub lic\ Kings_ View _ISM N 0 -Publ ic_Review _Ora ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-31
LSA KING S V IEW RESIDEN TIA L PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALIFO RNIA
I NIT IAL STUDY /M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARAT ION
SEP TEM BER 2023
trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period . GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of "CO2 equivalents" (C02e).
This section discusses the proposed project's potential impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for both construction and project operation. Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: "A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
Neither the City of Reedley, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the project's consistency with State GHG reduction goals.
Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N20. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 3.8.A. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction-related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the life of the development (nonresidential- 30 years) and added to the operational emissions.
Table 3.8.A: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year Metric Tons of CO2e per Year
2024 119.0
2025 54.2
Total 173.2
Amortized over 30 years 5.8
Source: LSA (July 2023).
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
3-32 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft. docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE DE CLARAT ION
SEPTE M BER 2 0 23
KINGS VI EW RE SIDENTIAL PRO JEC T
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FORN IA LSA
As shown in Table 3.8.A, it is estimated that construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 173.2 metric tons of CO2e. When considered over the 30-year life of the project, the total amortized construction emissions for the proposed project would be 5.8 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Operational Emissions. Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobilesource GHG emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips to and from the project. Areasource emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the project. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.
Emissions estimates for operation of the proposed project were calculated using Cal EE Mod. Model results are shown in Table 3.8.B. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project' s trip generation estimates, as identified in Section 3.17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 81 average daily trips . In addition, this analysis assumes the proposed project would be built to current Title 24 building standards. Where project-specific data were not available, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.
Table 3.8.B: Operational GHG Emissions
Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Emissions Category CO2 CH4 N20 C02e Percent of Total
Mobile Source 73.5 <0.1 <0.1 74.9 88
Area Source 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <1
Energy Source 6.5 <0.1 <0.1 6.5 8
Water Source 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 1
Waste Source 0.8 0.1 0.0 2.7 3
Operational Emissions 85.2 100
Amortized Construction Emissions 5.8 -
Total Operational Emissions 91.0
Source: Compil ed by LSA (July 2023).
Note= Some values may not appear t o add up correctly due to rounding.
CH4 = methane CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
CO2= carbon dioxide N2O = nitrous oxide
As shown in Table 3.8.B, the proposed project would generate approximately 91.0 metric tons of CO2e annually.
P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-33
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUDY /M ITI GATE D N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 20 2 3
The SJVAPCD has not established a numeric threshold for GHG emissions. As discussed, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). Neither the City of Reedley, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds.
Therefore, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions in Appendix D, Local Actions 1
7 , of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan such as a CEQA-qualified CAP, the first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State's climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. The following project attributes result in reduced GHG emissions from residential and mixed-use development. Residential and mixed-use projects that have all of the key project attributes in Table 3.8.C would accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.
Table 3.8.C: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation Provides EV charging infrastructure that, Consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-1.
Electrification at minimum, meets the most ambitious CALGreen requires provision of infrastructure to voluntary standard in the California accommodate EV chargers. It is not yet known Green Building Standards Code at the whether the proposed project would include electric time of project approval. vehicle charging; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be required to
ensure the proposed project would provide electric
vehicle charging. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be
consistent with this key project attribute.
VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are Consistent. The project site is located in an area with a surrounded by existing urban uses and mix of land uses, including residential and commercial, reuses or redevelops previously uses that are presently served by existing utilities and undeveloped or underutili zed land that is essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, presently served by existing utilities and sewer). In addition, as discussed in Section 3.17, the essential public services (e.g., transit, proposed project would result in a less-thanstreets, water, sewer). significant VMT impact. Therefore, the proposed project wou ld be consistent with this key project
attribute.
Does not result in the loss or conversion Consistent. The project site is not zoned for of natural and working lands. agricultural uses or enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract. The State Department of Conservation
classifies the project site as Non-Enrolled Land. The
project site is not located on land that is designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of State Importance. In
17 California Air Resources Board (CARB}. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions. November.
Website: https://ww2. a rb. ca .gov /sites/ defa ult/fil es/2022-11/2022-sp-a ppend ix-d-local-acti ons. pdf (accessed July 2023}.
3-34 P:\2023 1068 Kings Vi ew\PRO DU CTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM N 0 -Publ ic_Review _Ora ft .dDcx (09/22/23)
INITIAL STUDY/ M ITIGA TED N EGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SE PTEM BER 2023
KI NGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PRO JEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORNIA LSA
Table 3.8.C: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs
Priority Areas Key Project Attribute Project Consistency addition, the project site is currently vacant and is not zoned for agricultural uses. As such, the proposed
project would be consistent with this key project
attribute.
Consists of transit-supportive densities Consistent. The proposed project would not include (minimum of 20 residential dwelling 20 residential dwelling units per acre; however, the units·per acre) or Is in proximity to project site is located within 0.5 mile of a transit stop. existing transit stops (within a half mile), The proposed project would also provide pedestrian or satisfies more detailed and stringent infrastructure connecting to neighboring uses. The criteria specified in the region's SCS. roads serving the project are designed for low speed and would be conducive to bicycle use. As such, the
project would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle
trips and VMT and would increase the use of alternate
means of transportation. As such, the proposed
project would be consistent with this key project
attribute.
Reduces parking requirements by: Consistent. The proposed project would consist of 6 eliminating parking requirements or buildings consisting of 12 townhouse units. The including maximum allowable parking proposed project would provide 28 on-site parking ratios (i .e., the ratio of parking spaces to spaces throughout the project site. Based on the residential units or square feet); or proposed uses when compared to the number of providing residential parking supply at a parking spaces, the proposed project would be ratio of less than one parking space per consistent with this key project attribute. dwelling unit; or for multifamily
residential development, requiring
parking costs to be unbundled from costs
to rent or own a residential unit.
At least 20 percent of units included are Consistent. The proposed project would not include affordable to lower-income residents. affordable residential units. However, the proposed project would include residential units that would be
in close proximity to commercial uses and would allow
residents to live within walking distance to the
commercial zones . Although the proposed project
would not include affordable housing, the proposed
project would provide needed multi-family housing.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent
with this key project attribute.
Results in no net loss of existing Consistent. The proposed project would not result in affordable units. the removal of any existing residential units. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this
key project attribute.
Building Uses all-electric appliances without any Consistent The proposed project would be consistent Decarbonization natural gas connections and does not with State building code requirements as Title 24 use propane or other fossil fuels for advances to implement the building decarbonization space heating, water heating, or indoor goals from the 2022 Scoping Plan . As such, the cooking. proposed project would be consistent with this key project attribute.
Source: Compiled by LSA (July 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-35
LSA KINGS VIEW RE SI DEN TIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL ST UDY/M ITI GATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMB ER 2 0 2 3
With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residential and mixed-use project attributes related to EV charging requirements and building electrification. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG emission thresholds.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, the proposed project shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities that meet the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval as part of the final project design.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG emission thresholds. As such, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residential and mix-used project attributes to reduce GHG emissions.
Other applicable plans include the SJVAPCD's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which includes suggested best performance standards (BPS) for proposed development projects. However, the SJVAPCD's CCAP was adopted in 2009 and was prepared based on the State's 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by State policies (i.e., the 2022 California Green Building Code) and the 2030 GHG targets, established in SB 32.
In addition, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, and the Scoping Plan.
EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B30-15. CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 builds 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.
The Scoping Plan contains GHG reduction measures that work towards reducing GHG emissions, consistent with the targets set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 and AB 197. The measures applicable to the proposed project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and 3-36 P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGA TE D N EGA TIVE DE CLAR AT ION
SE PTEM BER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIA L PRO JEC T
CITY OF REEDL EY, CALI FORN IA LSA
efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as qualitatively discussed below.
Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California's new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed project would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction or operation of the proposed project. The elimination of natural gas in new development would help projects implement their "fair share" of achieving long-term 2045 carbon neutrality consistent State goals. As such, if a project does not utilize natural gas, a lead agency can conclude that it would be consistent with achieving the 2045 neutrality goal and will not have a cumulative considerable impact on climate change. 18 In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the CEC, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.
Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.
The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV Ill} Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.
As such, the proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in EO B 30 15, SB 32, AB 197, 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 GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April . Website :
Microsoft Word - FINAL CEQA Thresholds Report for Climate Impacts 03_30_22 revisions with tracked changes (baaqmd.gov) (accessed July 2023).
P:\ 20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\ Ki ngs _ View _ISM N 0-Publ ic_Review _Ora ft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-37
LSA KINGS VI EW RESI DEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CAL IFORNIA
3.9 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?
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?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f . Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires?
3.9.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
INITIAL STUD Y/ M ITI GATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2 0 23
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• ~ •
• ~ •
a. Would the project 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. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The proposed project would introduce multi-family residential uses to the project site. No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials or emitting significant amounts of hazardous substances would occur within the project site. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable standards and regulations, including Fresno County General Plan Policy HS-F.1.
3-38 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL ST UD Y/ M ITIGATED NEGATI VE DEC LARA TION
SEPTE M BER 2 023
KINGS VI EW RES IDENTIAL PRO JEC T
CITY OF REE DLEY, CALIFORN IA LSA
• Policy HS-F.1 The County shall require that facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.
As a result, the proposed project would not create significant hazards to the public or environment through the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less than significant impact would occur.
b. Would the project 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. See discussion a) above. The proposed project would not use substantial amounts hazardous materials which release would result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would also comply, as applicable, with DTSC, EPA and OSHA regulations for the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Additionally, the project would comply with local regulations like Fresno County General Plan Policy HS-F.1, included in discussion for a), which requires compliance with local, State and federal standards and procedures for the handling, use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project 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. The closest existing schools to the project site are the Immanuel High School, located approximately 0.62-mile northwest of the site, and Washington Elementary School, located 0.87-mile northwest of the site. The project site is not located within a 0.25-mile of an existing school. As previously discussed, the proposed project would introduce a multi-family residential use to the project site, which would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all hazardous materials within the project site would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project would not result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances, the impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project 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?
No Impact. According to the DTSC EnviroStor database, 19 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, 19 Cal ifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) . 2023. EnviroStor. Website : http://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca .gov/?surl=kzptd (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS- MND\ Pub lic\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-39
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INIT IA L ST UDY /M ITIGATED N EGAT IVE DECLA RAT ION
SEP TEMBER 202 3
school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 20 As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and there would be no impact. e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport is the Reedley Municipal Airport, approximately 6.1 miles north of the project site. The nearest medical center helipad to the project site is located at the Kaweah Delta District Hospital in Visalia, located approximately 19.4 miles southeast from the project site. The project site is not located within the airport land use plan for any airport 21 •
Additionally, due to the distance between the project site and local airports and helipads, operations at these locations are not expected to pose a safety hazard for people residing in the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to airport-related hazards, and the potential impact would be less than significant. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant 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 Reedley Fire and Police Departments maintain emergency response and evacuation plans that form part of the City's Emergency Response Plan, established pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 8 of the City's Municipal Code, and are consistent with Fresno County's Emergency Services Plan. Development of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the Reedley Fire and Police Departments.
The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated uses and infrastructure. The proposed project is not expected to block the circulation of emergency response services in the vicinity of the project site or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the City's Emergency Plan. During construction of the project, construction vehicles and equipment might obstruct traffic near the project site, but this obstruction would be temporary and would cease when project construction ceases. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans in Reedley, and this impact would be less than significant.
20 21
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Government Code Section 65962.S(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-Sa/ (accessed June 2023).
Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December. 3-40 P:\20231068 Kings View \ PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\ Public\ Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/ 22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUDY/M ITI GATED N EGA TI VE D EC LARA TION
SEPTEM BER 2023
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
g. Would the project expose people or structures1 either directly or indirectly1 to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild/and fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed campfires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. The project site is located in an area mapped as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). 22 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and the impact would be less than significant. 22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection {CAL FIRE}. 2022. Fresno County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/ (accessed June 2023}.
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\15- MND\Public\Ki ngs_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-41
LSA KIN GS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDL EY, CA LIFORNIA
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
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; 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
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
3.10.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
INIT IAL STUDY /M ITI GA TED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
• ~ •
• ~ •
• ~ •
• ~ •
• ~ •
• ~ •
• ~ •
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During project construction, there would be an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies.
Although the project site has a 0.9-acre area, the parcels that make up the project site have been identified for development pursuant to the City of Reedley's General Plan. As such, the project would require coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with 3-42 P :\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M N D\ Pub lic\ Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Ora ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUDY/M ITIGATED N EGAT IVE DE CLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PRO JECT
CI TY OF REEDL EY, CALI FORN IA LSA
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities {Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010- 0014-DWG and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) {Construction General Permit).
Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and other ground-disturbing activities such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP.
A SWPPP includes features designed to eliminate contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with sources of pollution that occur on construction sites, the main source being soil erosion resulting from unstabilized soils coming in contact with water and wind. These features are known as BMPs.
Common BMPs to limit pollution in stormwater runoff from construction sites include maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. Consistency with the Construction General Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction impacts on water quality to less than significant levels.
Operation. Operation of the proposed project could 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 nearby water bodies.
The City of Reedley operates under the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, as amended by Order WQ 2016-0069-EXEC; NPDES No. CAS000004). Consistent with the City's MS4 Permit, the project would implement water quality control BMPs consistent with requirements of the City and the California Storm Water Quality Association {CASQA) Best Management Practice Handbooks. Adherence to the City of Reedley's MS4 Permit 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.
Additionally, the City of Reedley's Stormwater Management Implementation Plan {SMIP) 23 was prepared in support of the City's application for a Municipal Stormwater {MS4) Permit to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan includes information on federal, state, and local storm water quality regulations, stormwater quality control strategies and programs to be implemented in Reedley, storm water quality monitoring and assessment, and plan implementation requirements. The project would comply with applicable storm water quality control requirements of the SMIP.
Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. The majority of the 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 City's storm drain system, there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. 23 City of Reedley. 2007. Storm Water Management Implementation Plan. Website : https://www.water boards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/reedley_swmp.pdf {accessed June 2023}.
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Ki ngs _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-43
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PR OJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INITIA L STUDY/ M ITI GATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEP TEMBER 2 023
Therefore, project operations would not violate groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b. Would the project 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 City of Reedley underlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Temporary dewatering from excavations could be necessary during construction. Construction-related dewatering would be temporary and limited to the area of excavations on the project site and would not substantially contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies. Operation of the project would not require groundwater extraction.
Following project implementation, there would be an increase in impervious surface area given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located on the perimeter of the project site and around the proposed residential buildings. An increase in impervious surface area decreases infiltration, which can decrease the amount of water that is able to recharge the aquifer/groundwater. However, the stormwater from the project site would be collected and directed to the City of Reedley's storm drain system, which includes percolation facilities to replenish groundwater supplies in the Basin.
According to the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 24 , Reedley's water supply
consists exclusively of groundwater. There are seven active domestic water supply wells that provide potable water to the City. The City is engaged in groundwater recharge projects and activities to reduce the consumptive use of groundwater. For example, the City currently discharges treated wastewater effluent from the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) into percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. In addition, the City maintains nine stormwater percolation basins that also aid in groundwater recharge through infiltration of runoff collected from developed land uses in the City. Thus, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge and impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, based on the maximum projected demand for the City included in the UWMP [i.e., 2,818 acre feet per year (AFY) in 2045] and projected available water supplies (i.e., 5,067 AFY in 2045), even during multiple dry years the City would have sufficient supply to cover projected demands resulting from development in the City.
Therefore, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable management of the Kings Subbasin. The impact would be less than significant. 24 Cit y of Reedley. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website : https://reedley.ca .gov/wp-content/ uploads/reedleyweb/2021/12/City_of_Reedley_UWMP _-_Public_Draft-1639427519.pdf (accessed June 2023).
3-44 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PROD UCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Ora ft.docx (09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PRO JEC T
CITY OF REED LE Y, CALIFORNIA LSA
c. Would the project 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. Construction of the proposed project would result in grading on the site that would expose native soils that could be subject to the effects associated with wind and water erosion unless adequate measures are taken to limit the transport of soils in surface water from the site to downstream locations.
Stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control for the City of Reedley is provided by the City.
Stormwater from the project site would be directed through internal drainage infrastructure (e.g., manholes, culverts, catch basins, etc.) towards existing and proposed drainage infrastructure located along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues. Stormwater from the project site would then be redirected towards the City's infiltration facilities.
As discussed previously, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to ident ify 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 requ irements in the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
The project would 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. At project completion, much of the project site would be impervious surface area and not prone to onsite erosion or siltation because no exposed soil would be present in these areas. The remaining portion of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize onsite erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Additionally, the Project Applicant would establish and maintain existing drainage patterns on the project site. 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. Impacts would be less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, soil would be disturbed and compacted, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flood ing compared to existing conditions.
As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on site. 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 on site or off site would be less than significant.
P:\202 31068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _D raft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-45
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORN IA
I NITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
While the project would permanently increase the impervious surface area in the project site, the project would be required to direct runoff towards existing and proposed drainage infrastructure along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues. Proposed storm drain infrastructure onsite and along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues would be constructed per City standards and would be compatible with planned stormwater infrastructure outlined in the City's Integrated Master Plan (IMP).
25 Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to pay applicable development impact fees, pursuant to Section 10-23-4 of the City's Municipal Code, which would address the cost of construction of public storm drainage facilities .
As such, the runoff from the project site would be able to be safely conveyed through existing and proposed planned infrastructure along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues. Additionally, the project would be required to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, the project would not 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. 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 Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces given that the project site would be mostly built out aside from planting areas located on the perimeter of the project site and around the proposed residential buildings. However, compliance with pre-existing regulatory requirements, including compliance with the Construction General Permit and 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. No mitigation is required .
Operations. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including the MS4 Permit, 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. Additionally, pursuant to requirements of the Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a development impact fee to fund development of future drainage infrastructure in the City.
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. 25 City of Reedley. 2014b. Integrated Master Plan for Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage Systems. June. Website : https://reedley.ca .gov/wp-content/uploads/reedleyweb/2020/01/City-ofReed ley-1 ntegrated-M aster-Plan-for-Potable-Water-Sanitary-Sewer-a nd-Storm-Drai nage-Systems-J u ne2014. pdf (accessed June 2023). 3-46 P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Public\Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/MITI GATED N EGAT IVE DE CLARA TI ON
SEPTEMB ER 2 023
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CAL IFORN IA LSA
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA). 26 Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect potential flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Refer to discussion a) in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials regarding the use of hazardous materials within the project site. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. No mitigation is required.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project falls within Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction under the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin {Basin Plan) 27 . The Basin Plan addresses water quality concerns and identifies water quality objectives within the Tulare Lake Basin. The City's SMIP describes all measures which must be implemented by the City and by future development to comply with water quality protection requirements. Additionally, as noted above, the proposed project would be required to adhere to NPDES drainage control requirements during construction and operation as well as to MS4 Permit requirements for stormwater discharge into the municipal system. The project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state and local policies and requirements related to water quality control to ensure Basin Plan goals are not obstructed .
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which is the agency responsible for sustainably managing groundwater in their respective defined basins and sub-basins. In 2019, the GSA adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan {GSP) 28 pursuant to California Water Code Section 10727. Because the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the GSP or any sustainable groundwater management plan. ln ·addition, the project would comply with the City' s UWMP goals, 26 27
28 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Website : https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed June 2023).
Cal ifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region . 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin. May. Website : https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water _issues/ basin_plans/tularelakebp_201805.pdf (accessed June 2023).
Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2019. Groundwater Sustainability Plan. December 13.
Website: https://kingsrivereast.org/gsp/ (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View_lSM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-47
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
INITIAL ST UDY/M ITI GATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
which are meant to fulfill groundwater sustainability goals of the GSP for the basin . As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan, SMIP, or other water quality control plan or the GSP, the UWMP, or other sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
3-48 P :\20231068 Kings View\PROD UCTS\ IS-M N D\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Ora ft.docx (09/22/23 )
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED NEGATIVE DE CLARA TI ON
SEP TEM BER 2023
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a confl ict with any land use plan, pol icy, or regulation adopted for the pu rpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3.11.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
~
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? LSA
No
Impact
~
•
Less Than Significant Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas.
The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated parking, open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities, landscaped areas, pedestrian and utility infrastructure. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, by single-family residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north of the project site.
The proposed project would not construct features that would divide an established community or remove means of access that would impair mobility in a community. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
b. Would the project 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 project site is designated Low Density Residential in the City of Reedley General Plan and zoned within the One-Family Residential District (R-1 [SP]). The project would require a change to the General Plan land use designation and zoning of the project site . The Project Applicant would need to submit a General Plan Amendment and Rezone application and comply with all of the City's associated requirements and fees. The impact of this land use change would be less than significant with implementation of the City's applicable requirements.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\Ki ngs_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-49
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA
3.12 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?
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?
3.12.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
INITIA L STUDY /M IT IGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2 023
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
a. Would the project result in the Joss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state ?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act provides for the evaluation of an area's mineral resources using a system of Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ} classifications that reflect the known or inferred presence and significance of a given mineral resource. The Fresno County General Plan Update Background Report provides information on the location and types of mineral resources located in the County. Figures 7-9, 7-11 and 7-13 in the Background Report 29 show that there are no areas designated MRZ-2 (i.e., areas where significant mineral resources are known or very likely to be found) within the project area. Furthermore, a review of the California Department of Conservation's Mines & Mineral Resource Related Data & Maps 30 indicates that there are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources, and the impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. 29 30
Fresno County. 2000. General Plan. Background Report. Website: https ://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/ shared assets/county /vision-fi les/fi I es/8398-backgrou nd_report_j u ne04. pdf ( accessed August 2023 ).
California DOC. n.d. DOC Maps: Mines and Mineral Resources. Website: https://maps.conservation. ca .gov/mineralresources/#datalist (accessed June 2023). 3-50 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INITIAL STUDY/M ITIGATED NEGA TIV E DE CLARAT ION
SEPTEMBER 2023
3.13 NOISE
KING S Vi ew RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALIFORN IA
Less Than
LSA
Potentially Significant with Less Than
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? b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
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 2 miles of a publ ic airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
3.13.1 Impact Analysis
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Significant No
Impact Impact
• •
•
•
The analysis included in this section is based on finding of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis31 prepared by LSA for this project. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis is included in Appendix D. a. Would the project result in 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB} is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.
Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA}. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.
As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the 31 LSA. 2023d . Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Kings View Residential Project Reedley, California.
August.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-51
LSA KINGS V IEW RESI DENT IAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FOR NI A
I NIT IAL STUDY /M ITI GA TED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMB ER 2023
sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern .
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Lcin) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CN EL noise scale for long-term traffic noise impact assessment.
A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Reedley.
The applicable noise standards governing the project site include the criteria in the California Code of Regulations and the Noise Element of the City's General Plan 2030 (Noise Element). The Noise Element provides the City's goals and policies related to noise, including the land use compatibility guidelines for community exterior noise environments. The City has identified the following goals and policies in the Noise Element:
Goals.
• NE 6.1A-To protect the citizens of the City from potential harmful effect due to exposure to excessive noise.
• NE 6.1B-To preserve the tranquility of residential and other noise sensitive areas by preventing noise-producing uses from encroaching upon existing and planned noise sensitive uses. • NE 6.1C-To develop a policy framework necessary to achieve and maintain a healthful noise environment.
Policies.
• NE 6.1.2: In order to maintain an acceptable noise environment, the following maximum acceptable noise levels should be established for various land use designations (see Tables C and D) .
• NE 6.1.3: Areas subject to a DNL greater than 60 dBA are identified as noise impact zones.
As part of the special permit process the proposed development project will be required to 3-5 2 P:\20231068 Kings View\ PR ODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Public\ Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGAT IVE DE CLARA TI ON
SEPTEMBE R 2 0 2 3
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL P RO JEC T
CITY Of REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
have an acoustical analysis prepared by a license engineer. The report should also include practical and reasonable mitigation measures.
• NE 6.1.4: Within noise impact zones, the City will evaluate the noise impact on development proposals. Mitigating measures, including but not limited to the following, may be required:
(a) Setbacks, berms, and barriers.
(b) Acoustical design of structures.
(c) Location of structures.
• NE 6.1.5: Design of all proposed development should incorporate features necessary to minimize adverse noise impacts, while also minimizing effects on surrounding lands uses.
Table 3.13.A: Allowable City-Wide Noise Exposure - Transportation Location of Measurement
Indoor
Outdoor
Source: City of Reedley (2014).
Notes :
Allowable Transportation Source Noise Exposure
Noise Sensitive Land Uses New Transportation Noise Sources 45 dBA Ldn 45 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn 60 dBA Ldn
1. This table is applicable to noise sources created by either new development and/or new transportation proj ects.
2. Bas ed on an evaluation of th e existing condition and proposed proj ect, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB Ldn wh ere practical appli cat ion of construct ion practices has been use d to mitigate exterior noise exposure.
dBA = A-weighted decib els
Ldn = day-night average noi se level
Table 3.13.B: Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Sources Allowable Stationary Source Noise Exposure
Daytime (7 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Hourly Leq, dBA
Maximum Level, dBA
Source: City of Reedley (2014).
Notes :
55 so
70 65
1. As determined within outd oor activity areas of existing or pl anned noise-sensitive uses, if outdoor activity area locat ions are unknown, the allowabl e noise exposure shall be determin ed at t he property line of t he noise sensitive use.
2. Based on an evaluation of th e existing co ndition and proposed proj ect, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB Ldn where pract ical applicat ion of construction practices ha s bee n used t o mitigate exterior noise exposure.
dBA = A-weighted decibel s
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
The City has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), construction activity is limited to the acceptable daily construction hours of 7:00 a.m . to 5:00 p.m.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRO DU CTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Kings_View_lSMND-Publ ic_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-53
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FOR NIA
I NIT IAL STUDY /M ITI GATE D N EGATIVE D EC LARATION
SEP TE MB ER 2023
Additionally, although the City does not have daytime construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the specified hours to determine potential California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) noise impacts, construction noise was assessed using criteria from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual). Table 3.13.C shows the Federal Transit Administration's {FTA) Detailed Assessment Construction Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construction phase.
Table 3.13.C: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Daytime 8-hour leq (dBA)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). dBA = A-w eighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sou nd level
80 85
90 Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The closest sensitive receptors include single-family homes located immediately adjacent to the south on Lilac Avenue and to the north from the project site boundary approximately 30 feet away.
The following section describes how the short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.
Short-Term (Construction} Noise Impacts. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project: noise generated by construction crew commutes and noise generated during construction phases, which include includes site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating on the project site. The CalEEMod output for the project indicates that the project would result in an additional 240 vehicles, consisting of worker and hauling trips, being added to South Frankwood Avenue, the roadway adjacent to the project site. Because the existing traffic volume on South Frankwood Avenue is considerably more than 240, construction-related vehicle trips would not approach existing daily traffic volumes and traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA CNEL. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term constructionrelated impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.
Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors.
Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone.
The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction . Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related 3-54 P :\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRODU CTS\IS-M N D\ Pub lic\ Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Ora ft.docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE D EC LARA TION SEP TEM BER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RES IDEN TIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.13.D lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Table 3.13.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%)1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet2
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor {ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, Table 1 (FHWA 2006).
Note: Noise level s reported in thi s tabl e are round ed to the nearest whol e number. 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noi se operation that a pi ece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise level s were developed ba sed on Specification 721.560 from the Central Artery/ Tunnel program to be consistent with th e City of Boston 's Noise Code for the "Big Dig" project.
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
It is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site sensitive residential uses to the south and north would reach an average noise level of 81 dBA Leq during daytime hours. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/ 22/ 23 ) 3-55
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INITIAL STUDY/ M ITI GATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMB ER 2023
than existing ambient noise levels in the project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed.
The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure NOl-1, which requires compliance with the construction hours specified in the General Plan EIR, which states that construction activities are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m . and 5:00 p.m., and with best construction practices that include use of noise attenuation fixtures for construction equipment, and the location of staging areas and stationary construction equipment away from off-site sensitive uses. As it relates to offsite uses, construction-related noise impacts would exceed the 80 dBA Leq construction noise level criteria, as established by the FTA for residential land uses for the average daily condition as modeled from the center of the project site. However, construction would be temporary, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOl-1, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Operational Noise Impacts. The proposed project would consist of the construction of 12 two-story townhouses. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. As discussed in Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis memorandum32, the proposed project would result in an increase of 81 daily trips. The adjacent South Frankwood Avenue carries approximately 4,260 average daily trips. The following equation was used to determine the potential impacts of the project:
Change in CNEL = 10 lOB10 W ce+p) /Vcexisting)]
where: V existing= existing daily volumes
Ve+p = existing daily volumes plus project
Change in CNEL = increase in noise level due to the project The results of the calculations show that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL is expected along South Frankwood Avenue. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the project site resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure NOl-1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• The project would comply with the City's General Plan EIR allowed daily hours of construction between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
32 LSA. 2023c. Kings View Residential Project Traffic Memorandum. June 15. 3-56 P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M N D\Pub lic\Kings _ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL STU DY /M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SE PTEM BER 2023
KI NGS VIEW RES IDE NTIAL P RO JECT
CITY OF REE DLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
• The project construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturer's standards.
• The project construction contractor shall locate staging areas away from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of project development.
• The project construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site whenever feasible.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion.
Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a lowfrequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment}, and occasional traffic on rough roads . In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.
The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration . In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other onroad vehicles make it unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground borne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary. Therefore, once constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne vibration . This impact would be less than significant.
P:\202 31068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Revi ew _Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-57
LSA KIN GS VIEW RESI DENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY , CALI FORNIA
I NITIA L STUDY/MIT IGATED N EGATI VE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMB ER 202 3
Construction Vibration. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in peak particle velocity (PPV) (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in rootmean-square (RMS) are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 VdB (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non-engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV}.
Table 3.13.E shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table 3.13.E, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residents and workers but would not cause any damage to the buildings.
Table 3.13.E: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Reference PPV /Lv at 25 ft
PPV {in/sec)
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer2 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks2 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec.
Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site . µin/sec = microinches per second Lv = velocity in decibel s ft= foot/feet PPV = peak particle velocity
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec= inch/inches per second
RMS = root-mean -square
VdB = vibration velocity decibel s
Lv {VdB)l
104
93 94
87 87
87 86
79 58
Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/office buildings in the project vicinity). Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to 3-58 P:\ 2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Ki ngs_ View _ISM ND-Pu blic_Review _Drah.docx {09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARAT ION
SE PTEM BER 2023
KINGS View RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY Of REEDLE Y, CALI FORN IA LSA
the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.
LvdB (D)= LvdB (25 ft)- 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref X {25/0} 1
·
5 As shown in Table 3.13.E, for typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 87 VdB at 25 feet. As noted above, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site include single-family residential uses located south and north of the project site. At 30 feet, these single-family residences would experience vibration levels of up to 71 VdB (0.068 PPV in/sec), which would not exceed the FTA threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 PPV in/sec) for non-engineered timber and masonry building damage when bulldozers and loaded trucks operate at or near the project construction boundary. Although construction vibration levels at surrounding uses would have the potential to result in annoyance, these vibration levels would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed and impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
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 2 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Airport-related noise levels are primarily associated with aircraft engine noise made while aircraft are taking off, landing, or running their engines while still on the ground. The closest airport to the proposed project site is Reedley Municipal Airport, located approximately 6 miles north of the project site. According to Figure 6.2 of the City's General Plan33 ,
the project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. Therefore, the project would not be adversely affected by airport/airfield noise, nor would the project contribute to or result in adverse airport/airfield noise impacts. 33 City of Reedley. 2014. General Plan 2030. February 18. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wp-content/ uploads/reed I eyweb/2019 /12/Reedl ey-G ene ral-PI a n-2030-Adopted-Febru a ry-18-2014-1. pdf ( accessed August 2023).
P:\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pub I ic_Review _Ora h .docx (09/22/23) 3-59
LSA KIN GS VIEW RESIDEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORN IA
3.14 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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3.14.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
I NITIAL STUDY /M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D EC LAR ATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
•
•
a. Would the project 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 project site is currently designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and zoned within the One-Family Residential District (R-1 [SP]), which is intended primarily to provide living areas at locations designated by the general plan for low and medium density, involving single- family dwellings. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Medium Density Residential and Multi-Family Residential (RM-3), respectively. The project site does not currently contain any permanent residents. Although the project site is zoned and designated for residential use, the proposed zoning would introduce higher-density residential uses on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would potentially result in an increase in unplanned population growth in the City.
The proposed project would introduce 12 residential units to the project site, which would increase the population at the project site by approximately 45 residents. 34, 35 The addition of 45 new
residents represents approximately 0.2 percent of Reedley's 2020 population of 25,227. 36 As such, population growth in the area as a result of residential land uses would be negligible, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 34 35
36 Based on an average of 3. 72 persons per household in the City of Reedley, as identified by the Census Bureau.
United States Cen sus Bureau. QuickFacts. Reedley city, California. Website: https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/reedleycitycalifornia (accessed June 2023).
Ibid.
3-60 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\15-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23 )
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SE PTE M BER 2023
KING S VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDL EY, CALI FORN IA LSA
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing1 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently vacant. The proposed project would introduce 12 townhouse units in six buildings into the project site and would not necessitate the displacement or removal of existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of replacement housing, and the impact would be less than significant.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\ PRODUCTS\ 15-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-61
LSA KI NGS VIEW RESI DENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
V. Other publ ic facilities?
3.15.1 Impact Analysis
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M IT IGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 202 3
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• r2l •
• r2l •
• r2l •
• r2l •
• r2l •
a. 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:
i. Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Reedley Fire Department (RFD) would provide fire protection services to the proposed project. The RFD operates out of a station located at 1060 D Street, approximately 1.31 miles northeast of the site. The RFD has three full-time employees, and a volunteer staff of approximately 40 people that are hired on a paid-per-call basis. The typical response time by the Reedley Fire Department is five to eight minutes, although there is no stated policy on standard response times or officer to resident ratios established by the City for the RFD.
Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in the City.
The project would introduce 12 residential units into the project site. The Project Applicant would need to submit a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees . The project would be consistent with the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services.
However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit plans to the RFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the project would conform to applicable building codes. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees pursuant to Section 10-23-4 of the City's Municipal Code to account for the potential impacts to fire service facilities.
3-62 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft. docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUDY/ M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
The RFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required . The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services.
The incremental increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on fire protection. ii. Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services in Reedley are provided by the Reedley City Police Department (RPD). The RPD operates out of a station located at 843 G Street, approximately
1.33 miles northwest of the site. The RPD Operations Division is staffed by approximately 29 sworn officers: the chief, one lieutenant, seven sergeants, one corporal, 17 patrol officers, and two reserve officers. The RPD also consists of non-sworn staff including one administrative assistant, six dispatchers, five community service officers, and three records specialists. The RPD has a standard response time of three to five minutes. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services. The Project Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees pursuant to Section 10-23-4 of the City's Municipal Code to account for the potential impacts to police protection services.
The RPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services and impacts to police protection would represent a less-than-significant impact. iii. Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) provides kindergarten through 12th grade education for the City of Reedley. The KCUSD covers approximately 600 square miles and has a student population of approximately 10,000. The KCUSD operates 19 schools for kindergarten through 12th grade education, as well as programs for adult, alternative, vocational, special education, and an online Leadership Academy. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase demand for school services. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees.
The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements
The KCUSD uses a student generation rate of 0.8 students per household unit to estimate future student populations. The proposed project would introduce 12 residential units to the project site, and as such, would include approximately 10 students that would require services from the KCUSD.
The proposed project would increase the demand for school services in the vicinity. The Project P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View_lSM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-63
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REE DL EY, CALIF ORNIA
INITIAL ST UDY/M ITI GATED N EGA TIVE D ECLA RATION
SEP TE MB ER 2023
Applicant would be required to pay appropriate school developer fees at time of building permits to address potential impacts to KCUSD services, as set forth in Education Code Section 17620, pursuant to Government Code 65995.
The KCUSD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require the construction of new or expanded school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional school facilities or services and impacts related to increased demand for school services would represent a less-thansignificant. iv. Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Reedley operates and manages about 72 acres of developed City-owned parks, trails and facilities. The General Plan EIR identifies that the City has a parkland standard of four acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated parking, open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities, landscaped areas, pedestrian and utility infrastructure. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase demand for parks in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
The proposed project could increase the demand for park services and nearby recreational facilities .
However, the proposed project would include the construction of private open space and play areas that would offset the demand for public parks in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for park and recreation facilities pursuant to Section 10-23-4 of the City's Municipal Code at the time building permits are obtained.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional park facilities, and impacts to parks would represent a less-thansignificant impact. v. Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase the demand for public facilities in the City. The Project Applicant would need to submit a GPA and rezone application and comply with all associated requirements and fees. The project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan after implementation of GPA and rezone requirements.
Development of the proposed project could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. The Project Applicant would be required to coordinate with the City the payment of applicable impact fees to mitigate impacts to public facilities resulting from the proposed project. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
3-64 P:\202 31068 Kings View\ PR ODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\ Ki ngs_ View_lSM ND-Public_Revi ew _Draft.docx (09/22/23 )
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARATI ON
SEPTEMBER 20 23
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FORN IA LSA
3.16 RECREATION
a. Would the project 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?
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?
3.16.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• •
• •
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated parking, open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities, landscaped areas, pedestrian and utility infrastructure. The development of the project would result in population growth which could increase the demand for nearby recreational facilities. The Project Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for park and recreation facilities pursuant to Section 10-23-4 of the City's Municipal Code at the time building permits are obtained. The impact fee would serve to offset project impact on existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units, which would introduce approximately 45 residents to the project site. The General Plan EIR identifies that the City of Reedley has about 72 acres of developed City-owned parks, trails and other recreational facilities. Given the minimal population growth associated with the project site, it is not anticipated that project demand would require the construction of additional public recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would include the construction of open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities that would offset the demand for recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The potential environment effects resulting from construction of play facilities within the project site is included in the analysis included in this Initial Study. Potential adverse physical effects would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of construction mitigation measures included in this document.
P:\202 31068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\IS-M N D\Pub lic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-65
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (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)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
3.17.1 Impact Analysis
I NITIAL STUDY/M ITI GATED N EGAT IVE D ECLA RATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
Significant No
Impact Impact
•
•
•
•
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system/ including transit/ roadway/ bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Reedley typically follows the Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS Guidelines) for the County of Fresno for traffic analysis purposes. 37 According to the County's TIS Guidelines, a detailed LOS study may not be required if the project is estimated to add less than 10 peak hour trips at any intersection within the vicinity of the project site.
A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis memorandum38 included as Appendix C, was prepared for the proposed project. Trip generation for the project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for Land Use 220 - "Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit". The proposed project is anticipated to generate 81 daily trips, including 5 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 6 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Since the anticipated number of peak hour trips generated by the proposed project is lower than the 10-trip threshold established by the County's TIS Guidelines, a detailed LOS study would not be required for this project.
The proposed project would not involve the alteration of any existing roadways, transit or bicycle infrastructure in the surrounding area . The project would include the construction of pedestrian sidewalks along the project frontage with South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue, which would be constructed pursuant to City standards. Furthermore, because the traffic generated by the proposed project is below the threshold of significance identified in the County's TIS Guidelines, the proposed project would not interfere with the operation of any transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities on the area. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable existing 37 38
Fresno County. 2018. Guidelines For the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within the County of Fresno. May.
LSA. 2023c. Kings View Residential Project Traffic Memorandum. June 15 3-66 P :\20231068 Kings View\PR ODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/ 2 2/23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIG ATE D N EGAT IVE DEC LARA TION
SE PTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FORN IA LSA
transportation programs and policies. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §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.
The City of Reedley has adopted the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines39 for preparation of VMT analysis for projects within the City. Based on the adopted guidelines, a project generating less than 500 daily trips can be considered a low VMT generator and can be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact.
As described in discussion for a) above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 81 daily trips, including 5 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 6 trips in the p.m. peak hour. As project trip generation is less than the Fresno COG Guidelines' daily trip threshold of 500 trips, a detailed VMT analysis would not be required for the project and VMT impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicle access to the project site would be provided by four driveways; two located along South Frankwood Avenue and two driveways along Cyrier Avenue.
Vehicles exiting the project site from a project driveway must stop before they continue to merge on the neighboring circulation network.
Pedestrian circulation for the proposed project would occur through proposed pedestrian sidewalks to be constructed pursuant to City requirements along the project frontage with South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue, and through internal pathways and walkways in the project site.
The proposed project would not include any sharp curves or other roadway design elements that would create dangerous conditions. In addition, the project design features would be required to comply with standards set by the City's General Plan and City Engineer. In addition, the proposed project would also be required to submit plans to the RFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure there are no substantial hazards associated with the project 39 Fresno Council of Governments. 2021. Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.
January.
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-67
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDEN TI AL PROJECT
CITY OF RE EDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL ST UDY/M ITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
design. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e .g., farm equipment), and no mitigation is required . d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of 12 townhouse units in six buildings in the project site, as well as associated parking, open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities, landscaped areas, pedestrian and utility infrastructure. Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site via four proposed ingress and egress driveways, two along South Frankwood Avenue, and two along Cyrier Avenue. Furthermore, the proposed project's site plan would be subject to review and approval by the RFD to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project implementation would not physica lly interfere with emergency evacuation to and from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required. 3-68 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PROD UCTS\ IS-MND\ Pub lic\ Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/ 23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
KI NGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PRO JEC T
CITY Of REE DLEY , CALI FORN IA
Less Than
LSA
Potentially Significant with Less Than
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.l(k)? Or
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.
3.18.1 Impact Analysis
Significant
Impact
•
•
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant No
Impact Impact
• •
• •
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.l(k)? Or 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\ Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 3-69
LSA KING S VIEW RESI DEN TI AL PR OJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUD Y/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
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)(l-2)).
Additional information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area were invited to consult on September 18, 2023, regarding the proposed project based on a list of contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These tribes included: Table Mountain Rancheria, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government and Wuksachi Indian tribe/ Eshom Valley Band.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies provide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public agency. The purpose of AB 52 is to provide the opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR's), as defined by the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2107(a). Under AB 52, public agencies shall reach out to California Native American Tribes who have requested to be notified of projects in areas within or which may have been affiliated with their tribal geographic range. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria was invited to consult on September 18, 2023. The consultation periods for both AB 52 and SB 18 are currently ongoing. AB 52 and SB 18 consultation invitation letters sent to tribes by the City of Reedley are included in Appendix D.
According to the Archeological Resources Assessment 40 prepared for the project, no records of tribal cultural resources were found in the project area according to the SLF record search conducted on May 30, 2023. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 included in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, would apply to the project and would reduce potential impacts to unknown resources to less than significant.
40 LSA. 2023a . Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Kings View Residential Project, Reedley, Fresno County, California (LSA Project No. 20321068). July 10. 3-70 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23)
INIT IAL STUDY/M ITIGATED N EGA TI VE D EC LARA TION
SEPTEMBER 202 3
KINGS VIEW RES IDEN TIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Less Than
Potentially Significant with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications • • • facilities, the construction or relocation of which could 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?
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?
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? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • ~ •
3.19.1 Impact Analysis
a, Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Water. Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Reedley. The proposed project would connect to an existing water main along Cyrier Avenue.
Short-term demand for water may occur during excavation, grading, and construction activities on site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust mitigation pu rposes. Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site would be used. Overall, short-term construction activities would require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water conveyance, treatment, or collection facilities with respect to construction activities.
P :\2023 1068 Ki ngs View\PRODU CTS\15-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-71
LSA KING S V IEW RESI DENT IAL PROJECT
(ITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SE PTEMBER 2023
According to the City's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 41, the City obtains its entire water supply from the Kings Subbasin. Water is extracted through seven active domestic water supply wells and distributed through the City's water system, which consists of 82 miles of pipeline and three elevated storage tanks. The City's UWMP identified that the City's 2020 daily per capita water use target was 215 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The project would introduce approximately 45 residents to the project site, which would require approximately 9,675 gallons per day. Based on the nature of the proposed project, the project-generated increase in water demand would be minimal and would fall within the City's existing capacity and available supply.
Additionally, as described in the discussion for b) below, the City would have sufficient water supplies during normal, single-year dry and multiple-year dry scenarios through 2045, and given that the project would comply with would introduce uses compatible with the zoning and land use designation of the project site, after compliance with the City's rezone and GPA requirements, the proposed project would be consistent with growth under the General Plan, and would be accounted for in the City's UWMP projections. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.
Wastewater. Wastewater sewage services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Reedley. The proposed project would connect to an existing wastewater service infrastructure along Cyrier Avenue. Wastewater from the project site would be collected and transported to the City of Reedley wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The WWTP has a treatment capacity of to 7.0 million gallons per day (mgd).
No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of construction activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable toilet facilities, which transport waste off site for treatment and disposal. Based on estimated water consumption for the project, wastewater generation is estimated to be 9,675 gallons per day. Based on the capacity of existing infrastructure, wastewater generation associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements or exceed the available capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. The project would be adequately served by the capacity and the existing wastewater conveyance system. The Project Applicant would be required to cover payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner which is compliant with the City's standards, specifications, and policies. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded wastewater facilities, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for wastewater services.
Stormwater. The City of Reedley would provide stormwater management services to the projects site. The proposed project would include the removal of the existing curb along the project frontage with Cyrier Avenue, as well as the construction of a new curb and gutter along the project frontage to Cyrier and South Frankwood Avenues. Stormwater from the project site would be collected 4 1 City of Reedley. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/reedleyweb/2021/12/City_of_Reedley_UWMP _-_Public_Draft-1639427519.pdf (accessed June 2023}.
3-72 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx {09/22/23)
I NIT IAL STUD Y/M ITIG ATED N EGA TIVE DE CLAR ATION
SEPTE M BER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIAL PRO JECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure onsite towards proposed and existing stormwater collection and drainage infrastructure along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues.
Impacts to storm drainage facilities have been previously discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Specifically, the proposed project would include construction of new surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure (e.g., manholes, culverts, catch basins, etc.) to direct stormwater towards the City's existing stormwater collection system along South Frankwood and Cyrier Avenues and towards the City's infiltration infrastructure. However, the construction of such minor facilities would be constructed in conformance with City standards; therefore, its construction would not cause significant environmental effects.
Electricity and Telecommunication Facilities. Electricity services would be provided by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and would be supplied through connections to existing service infrastructure. Telecommunication services for the project would be provided by either AT&T or Comcast. Electric power and telecommunication facilities would require connections to the project site. However, because the project site is located within an urbanized area with existing facilities in close proximity, connection to these facilities would not cause significant environmental effects. As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction or new or expanded utilities.
Summary. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power or telecommunications which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b. Would the project 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. Refer to discussion b) of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Based on the City's 2020 UWMP, the water supplies under normal conditions for the City from 2025 (1,795 Acre Feet (AF)/year) to 2045 (2,818 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand (i.e., 1,795 AF by 2025 and 2,818 AF by 2045) for each normal year, respectively. 42 During a single dry year, water supplies for the City from 2025 (1,795 AF/year) to 2045 (2,818 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand for each year (i.e., 1,795 AF by 2025 and 2,818 AF by 2045), respectively.
After a 5-year dry period, water supplies for the City from 2025 (1,795 AF/year) to 2045 (2,818 AF/year) would be sufficient to cover the potable water demand for each year (i .e., 1,795 AF by 2025 and 2,818 AF by 2045), respectively.
42 City of Reedley. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website : https://reedley.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/reedleyweb/2021/12/City_of _Reedley_ UWM P _ -_Publ ic_Draft-1639427519. pdf (accessed June 2023).
P:\202 31068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-M N D\ Pu blic\Kings_ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-73
LSA KING S VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CI TY OF REEDLEY, CALIFO RNI A
IN ITIAL STUDY /M IT IGATED NEG ATI VE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMB ER 2023
After submitting a GPA and rezone application and complying with all associated requirements and fees related to the GPA and rezone progress, the proposed project would be consistent with growth under the City's General Plan and would be accounted for in the City's UWMP projections.
Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and the impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project 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. Refer to discussion a) above. Wastewater generation associated with the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements or exceed the available capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project.
The project would be adequately served by the capacity and the existing wastewater conveyance system. In addition, the proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. As such, the proposed project would 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 and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the payment of any applicable connection charges and/or fees and extension of services in a manner that is compliant with the City's standards, specifications, and policies. As such, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required .
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Reedley has an exclusive franchise agreement with Mid Valley Disposal, which includes curb-side garbage and recycling pick up and hauling within the City.
The solid waste is then disposed at the American Avenue Disposal Site.
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10-AA-0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.
43 According to the CalEEMod analysis prepared for the project, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 8.78 tons of solid waste per year, or approximately 0.02 tons per day.
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 43 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle). n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary.
American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website : https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/ Summary/352 (accessed June 2023).
3-74 P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Pub lic\Ki ngs_View_lSM ND-P ublic_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23 )
IN ITIAL STUD Y/ MIT IGA TED NEGAT IVE DE CLAR AT ION
SEPTEMBE R 2023
KIN GS VIE W RE SIDENT IA L PROJEC T
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CAL IFO RN IA LSA
project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant.
e. Would the project comply with federal1 state1 and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. To comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), the County must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste from landfills. In addition, Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) sets a statewide 75 percent recycling goal by 2020. AB 341 also requires businesses generating more than four cubic yards of solid waste to recycle. The project is required to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations, including Title 14 and Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations and General Plan goals 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 impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
P:\202 31068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\IS-M N D\Public\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _D ra ft.docx (09/22/23) 3-75
LSA KINGS VIEW RESI DEN TIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands cl assified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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?
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?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of ru noff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
3.20.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
INITIAL STUD Y/M ITIGATE D N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEM BER 20 2 3
Less Than
Significant with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
• [:g] •
• [:g] •
• •
• •
a, Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the City of Reedley or an adopted emergency response plan. The project would not impede access to any nearby roadways that may serve as emergency access routes in the project vicinity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an area mapped by CAL FIRE as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). and is not located within a VHFHSZ.
44 The project site would comply with City and County fire safety regulations for project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and potentially expose project occupants to wildfires. The impact would be less than significant.
44 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fresno County State Respon si bility Area Fi re Haza rd Severity Zones. Website: https :// osf m. fire.ca .gov /fire-hazard-severity-zones-ma ps-2022/ (accessed June 2023).
3-76 P: \ 2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Kings_ View_lSM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx {09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITI GATE D N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SEP TEM BER 2 0 2 3
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENT IAL PR OJECT
CITY OF REED LEY, CALIFORN IA LSA
c. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an LRA U nzoned area and is not located within a VHFHSZ. Although the proposed project may require the installation of infrastructure to serve the site, the installation of this infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk in the project vicinity. The installation of wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to serve the project site would comply with design and construction requirements of the City. The Project Applicant would also pay for applicable impact fees and connection fees for utilities that would serve the project site.
Compliance with utility installation requirements of the City and utility providers would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project is not located within a VHFHSZ. The project site is also located on a relatively flat area and is not adjacent to any hills. In general, the potential for land sliding or slope failure in the City is very low, and the project site would not be susceptible to landslides. The project site is also not located on a flood hazard zone and would not be susceptible to flooding due to post-fire drainage changes. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire risks, and the impact would be less than significant.
P:\202 31068 Ki ngs View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\ Pub lic\ Kings_View_lSMND -Public_Revi ew_Draft.docx (09/ 22/23) 3-77
LSA KING S VIEW RESID ENTIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIF OR NI A
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
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.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
3.21.1 Impact Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
I NIT IAL ST UDY/ M ITI GATED N EG ATIVE DECLARATI ON
SEPTEMBER 20 2 3
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
No
Impact
•
•
•
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources and Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BI0-2 and CUL-1 and CUL-2, development of the proposed project would not: (1) degrade the quality of the environment; (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable due to the site-specific nature of the potential impacts. The potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with 3-78 P:\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRO DUCTS\IS-M ND\Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/22/ 23)
INIT IAL STUD Y/ M ITIGATED NEGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2 023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJEC T
CITY OF RE EDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
implementation of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise. These impacts would primarily be related to construction-period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics.
Implementation of mitigation measures AIR-1, B10-1 and B10-2, CUL-1 and CUL-2, GE0-1 and NOl-1 would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance.
Since the proposed project would not result in any significant project-level impacts, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. As such, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
For the topics of Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife, the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. As such, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated . c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's potential to result in environmental effects that could directly or indirectly impact human beings has been evaluated in this Initial Study. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, all environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSM ND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23 ) 3-79
INIT IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NE GATIVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
4.1 REPORT PREPARERS
4.1.1 City of Reedley
1733 9th Street
Reedley, California 93654
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Rodney L. Horton, MPA, Community Development Director
4.1.2 LSA Associates Inc.
KINGS VIEW RE SIDE NTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LE Y, CALIFORNIA
Project Management and Report Production, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
Amy Fischer, President, Principal in Charge
Kyle Simpson, Principal/Project Manager
Cara Carlucci, Associate
Nathaly Granda Bustamante, Environmental Planner
Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production
Transportation
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP, PE, Principal
Noise
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, California 94801
JT Stephens, Principal, Noise and Vibration
Moe Abushanab, Mechanical Noise Engineer
Biological Resources
285 South Street, Suite P
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Kelly McDonald, Biologist
Cultural Resources
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, California 94801
Neal Kaptain, RPA, Archeologist
P :\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\Pub lic\Ki ngs _ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/22/23) LSA
4-1
LSA
4-2
KINGS VI EW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REED LE Y, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL ST UDY/M ITI GATED N EGAT IVE DECLARATION
SEP TEMBER 2023
P: \ 20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M ND\ Pub lic\ Kings _ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Review _Dra ft.docx {09/22/23 )
I NIT IAL STUDY/M ITI GATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALI FORN IA LSA
5.0 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.
Website: Microsoft Word - FINAL CEQA Thresholds Report for Climate Impacts 03_30_22 revisions with tracked changes (baaqmd.gov) (accessed July 2023).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions.
November. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca .gov /sites/default/fi les/2022-11/2022-sp-appendixd-local-actions. pdf (accessed July 2023).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation .ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed June 2023). ---. 2021. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website: https://www. conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp (accessed June 2023). ---. n.d. DOC Maps: Mines and Mineral Resources. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/mineralresources/#datalist (accessed June 2023).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fresno County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/firehazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/ (accessed June 2023).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website: https://www2.calrecycle. ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352 (accessed June 2023).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. EnviroStor. Website: http://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/?surl=kzptd (accessed June 2023).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). n.d. State Scenic Highways. Website :
https ://dot.ca.gov/programs/ design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community1 iva bi lity /la p-l iv-i-scen ic-highways (accessed June 2023).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Energy Consumption Data Management Service.
Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed July 2023).
---. 2023. 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket# 23- IEPR-01.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Government Code Section 65962.S(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ section-65962-Sa/ (accessed June 2023).
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\ Public\Ki ngs_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 5-3
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDENT IAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CA LIFORNIA
I NITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin. May. Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/central valley/water_issues/basin_plans/tularelakebp_201805.pdf (accessed June 2023).
City of Reedley. 2007. Storm Water Management Implementation Plan. Website: https://www. waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/reedley_swmp.pdf (accessed June 2023).
---. 2013. Draft Program EIR, Reedley General Plan 2030, SCH #2010031106. January 8. Website :
https://reed ley .ca .gov /wp-content/ u ploads/reedl eyweb/2019/12/Draft-Progra m-E IR-Cityof-Reedley-Genera I-Pia n-1-8-2013. pdf (accessed June 2023). ---. 2014a. General Plan 2030. February 18. Website : https://reedley.ca .gov/wp-content/ u ploads/reedleyweb/2019/12/Reedley-Genera I-Pia n-2030-Adopted-Februa ry-18-2014-1. pdf (accessed June 2023).
---. 2014b. Integrated Master Plan for Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage Systems. June. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/reedleyweb/ 2020/01/City-of-Reedley-lntegrated-Master-Plan-for-Potable-Water-Sanitary-Sewer-andStorm-Drainage-Systems-June-2014.pdf (accessed June 2023) ---. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/reedleyweb/2021/12/City_of_Reedley_UWMP _-_Public_Draft1639427519.pdf (accessed June 2023).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Website: https ://msc. fem a .gov /portal/search? AddressQuery#sea rchresultsanchor (accessed June 2023).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, Table 1.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Fresno County. 2018. Guidelines For the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within the County of Fresno. May.
---. 2000. General Plan. Background Report. Website : https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/ shared assets/county /vision-ti les/files/8398-background_reportj u ne04. pdf ( accessed August 2023).
Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
December.
---. 2021. Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines. January. 5-4 P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Revi ew_Draft.docx (09/22/ 23)
INITIAL STUD Y/MITIGATED N EGAT IVE DE CLARA TION
SEP TEMBER 2 02 3
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL P RO JEC T
CITY OF REED LEY , CALI FORNIA LSA
Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2019. Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
December 13. Website: https://kingsrivereast.org/gsp/ (accessed June 2023}.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA}. 2023a. Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Kings View Residential Project, Reedley, Fresno County, California (LSA Project No. 20321068}. July 10. ---. 2023b. Biological Resources Assessment for the Kings View Residential Project located in City of Reedley, Fresno County, California. August 1.
---. 2023c. Kings View Residential Project Traffic Memorandum. June 15 ---. 2023d. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Kings View Residential Project Reedley, California. August.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS}. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 2023).
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E}. 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Website:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energysolutions/clean-energy-solutions. page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed July 2023}.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Reedley city, California. Website: https://www. census.gov/quickfacts/reedleycitycalifornia (accessed June 2023).
United States Department of Transportation (DOT). n.d. "Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S.
Light Duty Vehicles." Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-uslight-duty-vehicles (accessed July 2023}.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a . Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Information for Planning a~d Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. June 2023. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ (accessed May 2023}. ---. 2023b. USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons. Website: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ (accessed May 2023}.
---. 2023c. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI}, Online Mapper Tool. Website:: https:// www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed May 2023}.
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Review_Draft.docx (09/22/23) 5-5
INIT IAL STUD Y/MITIGATED NEGATI VE DE CLARATI ON
SE PTEMBER 2023
APPENDIX A
KIN GS VIEW RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\Pu blic\ Kings _ View _ISM ND-Pub I ic_Review _Dra ft.docx (09/20/23) LSA
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1 .1 . Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3. 7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
1 / 42
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1 . Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
2 I 42
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.1 0. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1 . Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
3 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
4142
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.1 5. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.1 6. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.1 8. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
5 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
6 I 42
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1m ield
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version
1.2. Land Use Types
Land se Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Value
Kings View Apartments Project
5/6/2024
2025
Project/site
County
1.90 28.4
36.579804822306926, -119.44985783747259
Fresno
Reedley
San Joaquin Valley APCD
San Joaquin Valley
2513
5 Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.14
Building Area (sq ft)
7 I 42
Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Condo/Townhouse 12.0 Dwelling Unit 0.75 8,898 9,600 38.0 Parking Lot 28.0 Space 0.15 0.00 0.00
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) - •-----ll~1llel•ll~1ll·l·lll~llelllH•IIH•·lllilill=l•I lii=i3-tl1 -lllllllll-llll
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 0.54 0.99 16.2 10.9 0.03 0.44 2.81 3.23 0.41 1.20 1.59 4,434 4,434 0.13 0.44 6.62 4,575 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.44 0.99 12.0 9.42 0.01 0.44 0.06 0.50 0.41 0.01 0.43 - 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,519 Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.18 0.24 5.14 3.95 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.28 0.16 0.04 0.20 712 712 0.03 0.02 0.13 719 Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 0.03 0.04 0.94 0.72 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.04 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 119
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) - •-----IHIM•IIIIM·IIHIMlllfrilliMi·IIH~iil NBC02 C02T CH4 N20 R C02e 8 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
2024 0.54 0.47 16.2 10.9 0.03 0.42 2.81 3.23 0.39 1.20 1.59 4,434 4,434 0.13 0.44 6.62 4,575 2025 0.44 0.99 12.0 9.46 0.01 0.44 0.10 0.50 0.41 0.02 0.43 1,518 1,518 0.06 0.02 0.44 1,525 DailyWinter
(Max)
2024 0.44 0.99 12.0 9.42 0.01 0.44 0.06 0.50 0.41 0.01 0.43 - 1,512 1,512 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,519 2025 0.44 0.98 12.0 9.39 0.01 0.44 0.06 0.50 0.41 0.01 0.43 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,518 Average
Daily
2024 0.18 0.20 5.14 3.95 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.28 0.16 0.04 0.20 - 712 712 0.03 0.02 0.13 719 2025 0.10 0.24 2.51 2.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.09 - 326 326 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 327 Annual
2024 0.03 0.04 0.94 0.72 < 0.005 0,03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.04 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 119 2025 0.02 0.04 0.46 0.37 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 54.0 54.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 54.2
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) HIIIIIIBIIIIII-Elllll-f#HIM Daily, iiMM·lfi&i111 liHl11iHM·liii4iii=t fBiii=ti• I---- Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 0.40 0.59 0.26 2.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 514 520 0.60 0.03 1.80 544 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.30 0.49 0.29 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 473 479 0.60 0.03 0.11 502 9 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.34 0.52 0.27 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 485 491 0.60 0.03 0.81 515 Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 O.Q7 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 80.3 81 .2 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 85.2
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) L4£YA.1811-llll--lltlll·l•ll~llel·lll~llellllltlllHtl·lllllill=!•I Hi=S-•1--1111-- Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 0.34 0.32 0.25 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 472 472 0.o2 0.02 1.73 481 Area 0.06 0.27 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.83 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 39.0 39.0 0.01 < 0.005 39.4 Water - - 0.93 1.28 2.21 0.10 < 0.005 - 5.27
Waste - - - - 4.73 0.00 4.73 0.47 0.00 16.6
Refrig. - - - - - - - - 0.06 0.06
Total 0.40 0.59 0.26 2.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 514 520 0.60 0.03 1.80 544 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 0.30 0.28 0.29 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 433 433 O.Q3 0.03 0.04 441 Area 0.00 0.21 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 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 39.0 39.0 0.01 < 0.005 - 39.4 Water - - - - - - 0.93 1.28 2.21 0.10 < 0.005 5.27
Waste - - - - - - 4.73 0.00 4.73 0.47 0.00 - 16.6
Refrig. - - - - - - 0.06 0.06
10 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Total 0.30 0.49 0.29 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 473 479 0.60 0.03 0.11 502 Average
Daily
Mobile 0.30 0.28 0.27 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 444 444 0.02 0.02 0.75 452 Area 0.03 0.24 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.0 39.0 0.01 < 0.005 39.4 Water - - - - 0.93 1.28 2.21 0.10 < 0.005 - 5.27
Waste - - - 4.73 0.00 4.73 0.47 0.00 16.6
Refrig. - - - - - - - 0.06 0.06
Total 0.34 0.52 0.27 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 5.66 485 491 0.60 0.03 0.81 515 Annual
Mobile 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 74.9 Area 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.15 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 6.46 6.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.53 Water - - - - - 0.15 0.21 0.37 0.02 < 0.005 0.87
Waste - - - - - - - - - 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.08 0.00 - 2.74 Ref rig. - - - 0.01 0.01
Total 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.94 80.3 81 .2 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 85.2
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) - •-----iii1"·i•iiHIHJ•M•Hl1t1liiiMiii¥ti·l•Hiiii=M-SH-ii=ii•tllllllllll--- Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
11 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Off-Road 0.25 0.25 7.05 5.99 0.01 0.24 - 0.24 0.23 - 0.23 - 858 858 0.03 0.01 - 861 Equipment
Dust - - - 0.21 0.21 - 0.02 0.02
From
Material
Movemen:
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 35.4 Equipment
Dust - - - - 0.01 0.01 - < 0.005 < 0.005
From
Material
Movemen :
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 5.84 5.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 5.86 Equipment
Dust - - - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005
From
Material
Movemen:
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 31.0 31 .0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 31 .5 12 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) - •-----lllll·l•IHIH·llllll·IIIH~l11111•·11H~l1ll=l•I lii=i3•·1----- Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.38 0.38 13.0 9.79 0.02 0.37 - 0.37 0.34 - 0.34 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 - 1,719 Equipment
Dust - - - 2.08 2.08 - 1.00 1.00
From
Material
Movemen :
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
13 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 46.9 46.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 47.1 Equipment
Dust - - - - 0.06 0.06 - O.Q3 0.03
From
Material
Movemen:
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 7.77 7.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 7.80 Equipment
Dust - - - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
From
Material
Movemen:
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 47.3 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.06 3.24 0.77 0.02 0.05 0.70 0.74 0.05 0.19 0.24 2,674 2,674 0.06 0.42 6.43 2,808 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
14 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 73.3 73.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 76.9 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.7
3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) m•llllllll---•HIMMi#MltJ•MiHIMliiitiliHM·liHiiii=M•&h-ii=M•tl1 _____ Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.34 0.34 10.8 8.10 0.01 0.38 - 0.38 0.35 - 0.35 - 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 - 1,309 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.34 0.34 10.8 8.10 0.01 0.38 - 0.38 0.35 - 0.35 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 1,309 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.1 4 0.1 4 4.34 3.25 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 523 523 0.02 < 0.005 - 525 Equipment
15 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.03 0.03 0.79 0.59 < 0.005 O.G3 ,_ 0.03 O.G3 - 0.03 - 86.7 86.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 87.0 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 53.5 53.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 54.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 18.0 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 47.5 47.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 48.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.21 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.27 3.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.32 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19 Hauling 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 0.00 16 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Blall _____ i#&JMMiHii+Mi#Hl111liHiliHti·lii~iiii=M+ iii=IS·MIIII ____ Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.34 0.34 10.8 8.10 0.01 0.38 - 0.38 0.35 - 0.35 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 1,309 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.34 0.34 10.8 8.10 0.01 0.38 - 0.38 0.35 - 0.35 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 1,309 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.06 0.06 1.99 1.49 < 0.005 0.07 - 0.07 0.06 - 0.06 240 240 0.01 < 0.005 - 241 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 39.7 39.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 39.9 Equipment
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
17 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 52.4 52.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 53.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 17.7 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 47.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.9 16.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.7 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 8.86 8.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.25 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.47 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Hauling 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 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------f#MMMiHli·i·li#&l111liHl11iHl·Nii 4iiM b5Hi=B• I-IIII--IIII Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
18 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Off-Road 0.22 0.22 5.75 4.58 0.01 0.25 - 0.25 0.24 - 0.24 823 823 0.03 0.01 - 826 Equipment
Paving 0.03
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 34.0 Equipment
Paving < 0.005
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0,03 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.62 Equipment
Paving < 0.005
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
19 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.01 4.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.07 Vendor 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 0.00 Haul ing 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.67 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3. 11 . Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) lm•IIII----JHIM• JHIM·MJHIMliii•liHM·liH4iii=M+•di=N-tl----- Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 - 134 Equipment
Architect 0.55
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.18 4.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.20 Equipment
Architect 0.02
ural
Coatings
20 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.69 Equipment
Architect < 0.005
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 9.50 9.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.64 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
21 / 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) •··11nfilrlllll-lllll--•l~1H•l•il!1ll·l·IIHIHIIHIIIHl·lllll1ll=l•I Onsite
lii=l-•1-----
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 - O.Q7 0.06 - 0.06 - 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipment
Architect 0.55
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 0.06 - 0.06 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipment
Architect - 0.55
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 33.7 33.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 33.8 Equipment
Architect - 0.14
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Annual
22 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 5.58 5.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 5.60 Equipment
Architect - 0.03
ural
Coatings
Onsite 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 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 10.7 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 9.30 9.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.44 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.47 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 23 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
4. C)perations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1 . Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) -------------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T 0.34 0.32 0.25 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 472 472 0.02 0.02 1.73 481 ownhous
e
Parking 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 0.00 Lot
Total 0.34 0.32 0.25 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 472 472 0.02 0.02 1.73 481 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T 0.30 0.28 0.29 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 433 433 0.03 O.Q3 0.04 441 ownhous
e
Parking 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 0.00 Lot
Total 0.30 0.28 0.29 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 - 433 433 O.Q3 0.03 0.04 441 Annual
Condo/T 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 O.Q7 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 74.9 ownhous
e
Parking 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 0.00 Lot
24 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Total 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0,07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12
4.2. Energy
4.2. 1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) -----------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
Annua l
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
35.8 3.20
39.0 35.8
3.20 39.0
5.93 0.53
6.46 25 I 42
35.8 0.01 < 0.005
3.20 < 0.005 < 0.005
39.0 0.01 < 0.005
35.8 0.01 < 0.005
3.20 < 0.005 < 0.005
39.0 0.01 < 0.005
5.93 < 0.005 < 0.005
0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005
6.46 < 0.005 < 0.005
74.9 •
36.2 3.23
39.4 36.2
3.23 39.4
5.99 0.53
6.53 Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) -------------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T 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 ownhous
e
Parking 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 Lot
Total 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T 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 ownhous
e
Parking 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 Lot
Total 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 Annual
Condo/T 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 ownhous
e
Parking 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 Lot
Total 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
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
26 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) h·M·•IIIIIBllllllll--ll~ll·l•IHll·l·llllll·lllll•IIHtl·IIHl-tll=l•I lii=li-•1----- Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Hearths 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 Consum 0.19
er
Products
Architect 0.02
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.83 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.06 0.27 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 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 Consum 0.19
er
Products
Architect 0.02
ural
Coatings
Total 0.00 0.21 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 Annual
Hearths 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 27 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Consum 0.03
er
Products
Architect < 0.005
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06
pe
Equiprne
nt
Total 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.06
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005
0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005
-----------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
28 I 42
0.93 1.28
0.00 0.00
0.93 1.28
0.93 1.28
2.21 0.10 < 0.005
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.21 0.10 < 0.005
2.21 0.10 < 0.005
0.15 0.15
•
5.27 0.00
5.27 5.27
Parking
Lot
Total
Annual
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.93 1.28 2.21 0.10 < 0.005 5.27
0.15 0.21 0.37 0.02 < 0.005 0.87
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.21 0.37 0.02 < 0.005 0.87
••••••••••••••••• Daily
Summ
,
er •
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
29 I 42
4.73 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.73 0.00
4.73 0.00
4.73 0.47 0.00 16.6
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.73 0.47 0.00 16.6
4.73 0.47 0.00 16.6
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Parking
Lot
Total
Annual
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Parking
Lot
Total
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
0.00 0.00
4.73 0.00
0.78 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.78 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
4.73 0.47 0.00
0.78 0.08 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.78 0.08 0.00
-----------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhous
e
Total
Annual
30 I 42
0.00 16.6
2.74 0.00
2.74 •
0.06 0.06
0.06 0.06
0.06 0.06
0.06 0.06
Condo/T
Total
4. 7. Off road Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) II _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ub!.il&L!iL!.L&UL.JU!&L!.!d&llL!iZZLE -
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) II _ _ _ _ _ L!blil&L!bblL&Uhill&ULU&llLLULELLU&L
-
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
31 / 42
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
•
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) £ _ _ L _ _ U _ L LL Lb!JllLlHL&Lb!.L!&L.!d&ll
.
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10. 1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 32 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Veget tio TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T ·-
. -
·-
. -
. -
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) -----------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) - •-----•#Hli·iMiHIM·M•HIMliHl111Hfi·N•Hiii
33 I 42
•
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
34 I 42
Remove
d
Subtotal
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Pha 1e Name
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Phase Type
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2. 1. Unmitigated
Phas1 Name Equipment Type
Site Preparation Graders
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Grading Graders
Grad ing Rubber Tired Dozers
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Building Construction Cranes
Building Construction Forklifts
Start Date
5/6/2024
5/27/2024
6/10/2024
4/7/2025
12/16/2024
Fuel Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
End Date
5/24/2024
6/7/2024
4/4/2025
4/25/2025
5/9/2025
Engine Tier
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Days Per Week
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 Number per Day
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 35 I 42
Hours Per Day
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
7.00 4.00
6.00 Work Days per Phase
15.0 10.0
215
15.0 105
Horsepower
148
84.0 148
367
84.0 367
82.0 Phase Description
Load Factor
0.41 0.37
0.41 0.40
0.37 0.29
0.20 Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 oes
Paving Cement and Mortar Diesel Tier 2 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Mixers
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.00 81 .0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
11111 Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 7.70 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 7.50 7.70 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 37.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck - - HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction Worker 8.64 7.70 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.28 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck - HHDT
36 I 42
Paving
Paving Worker
Paving Vendor
Paving Hauling
Paving Onsite truck
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating Worker
Architectural Coating Vendor
Architectural Coating Hauling
Architectural Coating Onsite truck
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
1• Strategies Applied
Water unpaved roads twice daily
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph
Sweep paved roads once per month
5.5. Architectural Coatings
• I
Architectural Coating
5.6. Dust Mitigation
Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
18,018
5.6.1 . Construction Earthmoving Activities
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
17.5 0.00
1.73 0.00
PM10 Reduction
55%
44%
9%
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
6,006
7.70 4.00
20.0 7.70
4.00 20.0
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
0.00 37 I 42
PM2.5 Reduction
55%
44%
9%
LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0.00 392
Pha e Name
Site Preparation
Grading
Paving
Material Imported (Cubic Yards)
0.00 3,000
0.00 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Material Exported (Cubic Yards)
0.00 0.00
0.00 Cont ol Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)
Water Exposed Area
5. 7. Construction Paving
Condo/Townhouse·
Parking Lot
2 Area Paved (acres)
0.15 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 2024
2025
kWh per Year
0.00 0.00
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
-- Trips/Weekday
Condo/Townhouse 81.0
Parking Lot 0.00
Trips/Saturday
81 .0
0.00 Trips/Sunday
81 .0
0.00 204
204
Trips/Year
29,565
0.00 Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023 Acres Graded (acres)
7.50 7.50
0.00 PM 10 Reduction
61%
0,03
0.03 VMT/Weekday
519
0.00 Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)
0.00 0.00
0.00 % Asphalt
0%
100%
VMT/Saturday
519
0.00 0.15
PM2.5 Reduction
61%
< 0.005
< 0.005
VMT/Sunday
519
0.00 VMT/Year
189,498
0.00 38 I 42
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10. 1. Hearths
5.10. 1.1. Unmitigated
Heart Type
Condo/Townhouse
Wood Fireplaces
Gas Fireplaces
Propane Fireplaces
Electric Fireplaces
No Fireplaces
Conventional Wood Stoves
Catalytic Wood Stoves
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves
Pellet Wood Stoves
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Resid
1 ntial Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 18018.45
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Seasom
Snow Days
Summer Days
6,006
Unit
day/yr
day/yr
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Unmitigated (number)
0 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
0.00 39 I 42
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
0.00 Value
0.00 180
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
392
5.11 . Operational Energy Consumption
5.11. 1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) I Land yse
Condo/Townhouse
Parking Lot
Electricity (kWh/yr)
64,126
5,724
204
204
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12. 1. Unmitigated
Condo/Townhouse
Parking Lot
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land se
Condo/Townhouse
Parking Lot
Indoor Water (gal/year)
483,552
0.00 Waste (ton/year)
8.78 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant
0.0330
0.0330
Quantity (kg)
40 I 42
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
0.0040
0.0040
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
161,066
0.00 Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
0.00 0.00
Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Condo/Townhouse
Condo/Townhouse
Average room NC &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A
Household refrigerators R-134a
and/or freezers
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
• ment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier
5.1 6. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
• ment Type Fuel Type
5.16.2. Process Boilers
. mentType
5.17. User Defined
Equi ment Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Fuel Type
Number per Day
Number
2,088
1,430
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
< 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Fuel Type
41 / 42
1m 1 tion Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type
5.18. 1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18. 1.1. Unmitigated
Bioma s Cover Type Initial Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree T- pe Number
8. User Changes to Default Data
Scree
Land Use
Construction: Construction Phases
Construction: Off-Road Equipment
Operations: Vehicle Data
Operations: Hearths
Operations: Energy Use
Kings View Apartments Project Custom Report, 7/18/2023
Initial Acres Final Acres
Final Acres
Electricity Saved (kWh/year} Natural Gas Saved (btu/year} Justification
project site is 0.9 total acres
construction is expected to commence in May 2024 and occur for approximately 12 months, ending in May 2025. Overlap between building construction and architectural coating.
Default construction schedule with Tier 2 engines
Based on project's trip generation of 81 average daily trips Assuming no wood burning hearths
Proposed buildings would be all electric
42 I 42
LSA KINGS VI EW RESI DE NTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORN IA
This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL STUDY/ M ITI GATED NEG ATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Pub lic\Kings_ View _ISM ND-Public_Review _Draft.docx (09/20/23 )
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGA TIVE DE CLARA TION
SEPTEMBER 2023
APPENDIX B
KIN GS VIE W RE SIDENTIAL PR OJECT
CITY OF REEDLE Y, CALIFORNIA
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\ PRODU CTS\ IS-M ND\Public\ Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/20/23) LSA
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
LSA
August 2023
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
City of Reedley
1733 9th Street
Reedley, California 93654
Prepared by:
LSA
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602
(949} 553-0666
Project No. 20231068
LSA
August 2023
NOIS E AND V IBRATION IM PACT AN ALYS IS
A UGUST 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA LSA
FIGURES AND TABLES ... ............................... ... ......................... .............................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................. ..... .. ....... iii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Description ......................................... ............... ...................................... .. 1 Existing Land Uses in the Project Area ......................................... ............. ................................... 1 NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS ................................................................... 4 Characteristics of Sound ........................................ .. .. .... .... .......... .. .... ........ ........ .. .. ................. ... .. 4 Measurement of Sound ......... .. ........... .... .............................................. .. ......... ..... .......... ............ . 4 Physiological Effects of Noise .... ............................................ .............. ..... ......... ........ .. ................... 5 Fundamentals of Vibration .............................................. ........ .... ... .. ......... .......... ........................ 7 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................... 9 Applicable Noise Standards ....................... ................................ .... ................... ..... .............. ........ 9 California Code of Regulations .............. .................... ....... ... .. .. ...................................................... . 9 City of Reedley .... .. ... .... .. .. ................ ........... ..... .. .... .... .................. .................... ...... ..... ..... .. ..... ....... 9 Federal Transit Administration .............................. ....................... ................................................ 11 Applicable Vibration Standards ........................................................ ............... ................ .. ....... . 11 Federal Transit Administration ...... .. ..... ......................... ... ........ .. ...... ....... ...... ...... .... ........... .. .... .. .. 11 OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT .................................................. 13 Ambient Noise Measurements ....................... .. ....... .. ................................................................ 13 Long-Term Noise Measurements .... .................... ................................................................ .......... 13 Existing Aircraft Noise ............................................................................................. .. ............. ... 13 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 15 Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts .............................................................................. ..... 15 Short-Term Construction Vibration Impacts ......................................................................... ..... 18 Long-Term Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts ...... ........... ....... ............................. .................. ........... 20 Stationary Operational Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers .. .......... ......................................... 20 Long-Term Traffic-Related Vibration Impacts .............................. ... .................. ... ......... ..... ........ 20 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ........................................................................................ 21 Exterior Noise Assessment .. .. .............................. ........... ................................ ........................... 21 Interior Noise Assessment .. ... ........... ... ... ......... ... .... ............................... ...... ... .............. .. ........... 21 BEST CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES .............................................................................. 22 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 23
APPENDICES
A: NOISE MONITORING DATA
B: CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23»
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT A NA LYS IS
AU GUS T 2023
FIGURES
FIGURES AND TABLES
KI NGS VIEW RES ID ENTIA L PROJEC T
REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA LSA
Figure 1: Project Location ............. .... ....... .. .... ........ .. .... .... .... ..... ....... ..... ....... ... ... ....... ....... ... ........ ..... ... .. 2 Figure 2: Site Plan .................... ..... .... ... .... ...... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ... ..... .... ............. ... ... .... .. ......... .... ....... .. ... ...... 3 Figure 3: Noise Monitoring Locations ..... .................... ... .. ...... ... ... ........ ...... .... ........ ................... .. .. ...... 14 TABLES
Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms .... ......... ........ .. ......... ............ ...... ... ..... ... ... ..... .... .... .. ...... ... .. .... 6 Table B: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources .......... .... ......... ......... ..... ............................... 7 Table C: Allowable City-Wide Noise Exposure - Transportation ...................... ....... .. .. ................ .. .. ... 10 Table D: Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Sources ........... .. ....... ........ .. ........ .................... .. ....... 10 Table E: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria .......... ................... ............... ....... 11 Table F: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis ......... ... .............. .. .... .. ...... .. .... ....... 12 Table G: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .... ............................ ................... .. ..... .... .. .... ... ... .... 12 Table H: Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements ........................................................ ........ .. 13 Table I: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ... ......... ....... .. .. ................. ......... .............. .. ... ... 16 Table J: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor .... .... ..... ................... ...... .. .......... 17 Table K: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment.. .... ... ........ ........... ........ ...... ... .. .. .. 18 Table L: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor ..... ..... .. .... .. ... ... .. 19 Table M: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor ........ ...... ....... ... ... .. 19 P:\20231068 Kings Vi ew\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20 231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» ii
NOISE AND V IB RA TI ON IM PACT A NA LYS IS
AUGU ST 2023
KINGS VI EW RES IDEN TI AL PROJEC T
REE DLE Y, CALIF ORNIA
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADT
CEQA
City
CNEL
dB
dBA
EIR
FHWA
ft
FTA
FTA Manual
in/sec
Leq
Lmax
mi
Noise Element
PPV
project
RMS
STC
VdB
average daily trips
California Environmental Qual ity Act
City of Reedley
Community Noise Equivalent Level
decibel
A-weighted decibel(s)
Environmental Impact Report
Federal Highway Administration
foot/feet
Federal Transit Administration
FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual inch/inches per second
day-night average noise level
equivalent continuous sound level
maximum instantaneous sound level
mile/miles
City of Reedley General Plan 2030 Noise Element
peak particle velocity
Kings View Residential Project
root-mean-square
Sound Transmission Class
vibration velocity decibels
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\Noise\ 20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» LSA
iii
NOISE AND V IBRA TIO N IMPAC T AN ALYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJEC T
REE DL EY, CALIF ORNIA LSA
INTRODUCTION
This noise and vibration impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts and reduction measures associated with the proposed Kings View Residential Project (project) in Reedley, California. This report is intended to satisfy the City of Reedley's (City) requirement for a project-specific noise impact analysis by examining the impacts of the project site and evaluating noise reduction measures that the project may require.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley floor in Fresno County.
Specifically, the project site is located on two Assessor's Parcel Numbers, 365-22-80 and 365-22-81.
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains one transformer in the southeast corner. The project site is bounded by South Frankwood Avenue to the east, Cyrier Avenue to the west, singlefamily residential uses to the south, and single-family residential uses and commercial uses to the north. Some lands in the vicinity of the project site are fallow/vacant lots; however, most of the lands are developed with a mixture of commercial developments, schools, and residential uses.
There are no undisturbed open spaces in the vicinity of the project site. See Figure 1, Project Location, and Figure 2, Site Plan, below.
The project involves the construction of six, two-story multi-family residential buildings totaling approximately 8,898 square feet. The following improvements would be included as part of the proposed project: a total of 28 on-site parking spaces; open space and common areas with picnic and play facilities; exterior lighting; approximately 9,600 square feet of landscaped areas; and the construction of trash enclosures designed pursuant to City standards.
EXISTING LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
The project site is surrounded primarily by residential and commercial uses. The areas adjacent to the project site include the following uses:
• North: Existing single-family residence and auto repair shop; • East: South Frankwood Avenue followed by vacant land; • South: Existing single-family residences; and
• West: Existing single-family residences opposite Cyrier Avenue.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include single-family homes located immediately adjacent to the south on Lilac Avenue and to the north from the project site bounda ry approximately 30 feet away.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\ 20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 1 r-___________ \/Y:...SJa1Jte_y_:-~v_e:::======================'. c:(~1 I I I I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .C• 0
c=========::::: FE-Sta oJe ycAve--
~' c:(1 343 ft
- ----0 ;===============-W..::: t!_u1Jt.s_1J7 _an:::b"v~~===========================::::'.o .___ ____ ~ :::=====~(/)~I ==================:=::;~_~:-___ - _-_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -----.__J ~I:=:======-== u
u·
&)
I
~
:=======-:::'._~ c.:::;:::::J'-------------------=--=-=-=--=--=--=-----:_-_--__, _J
Q) --- - -- -----
LSA
FEET
i
>: ! ~ ~ , II ~i <ll~l!::::::= '=-'
_E'. -~ I ~ ~
en~ '.::======================-\IY~tU.ac:/ly_e~ en, ;::· =================:::'.
FRESNO
COUNTY
.t a~lier
350
340 ft
Project Vicinity
I c:::::::i I Project Location
Q)
>
,<r::
~ ,~
LL.
~
SOURCE: Esri Community Maps
J:\20231068\GIS\Pro\Kings View Apartments Project\Kings View Apartments Project.aprx (8/21/2023) =-=-:::.::-_::-_-_-_ -_ -=.....,, ,p=,==================l ~ I = E-Herbert-Ave--------f
'------------E-Bavis-Ave=============-=:
338 ft
FIGURE 1
Kings View Residential Project
Project Location
i~\fo~~2 R,1(SP)
)i- ]i
__...-::::
\· l I
SASAKI AVE
- . j~ ... r
~ -·;
' f ' I
1;,.~\:g~t
,,s;_,(sP) l"
LOf ~z99
~• ,s.'21· ''
~ ,, .•. _f---,' •.•. ,=::-J Ir.-·:· '.:1;" 1 ~~~)o
r :: 1 . ,
PROJECT INFO: 1 n = 20'
PROJECT LOCATION: AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER Of
APN:
GROSS ACREAGE:
S. FRANKW00D AVE. ANO W. LI LAC AVf..
365-220-80 & 81
0.90 ACRES
NET ACREAGE: 0.90 ACRES
PROJECT OWNER: NASSR! JABER MEG'ILOOON PROPERTIES, LILC 521 FINLEY DR
TAFT, CA 93268
EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT/OPEN SP/>CE
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (SP)
PROPOSED LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSllY RESIDENTIAL (
8 - 15 OU/AC)
PROPOSED ZOI-ING: RM-3
PROPOSED USE: 12 DLI
PROPOSED DENSllY: 13.3 DU/AC
LSA
$ 20
SOURCE: Vang Inc. Consulting Engineers, 2/9/2023
I :\20231068\G\Site_Plan .ai (6/14/2023)
r ~
l
PARKING REQUIRED' 3.5 STALJLS PER UNIT = 12 X 3.5 = 42 STALJLS PARKING PR0\11DE0: 28 STALJLS
PARKING PROPOSED: 2.3 STALJLS PER UNIT AND PUD REQUEST NEEDED BUILDING 1: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 2: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 3: 1 .483 SF
BUILDING 4: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 5: 1,483 SF
BUILDING 6: 1,483 SF
BUILDING TOTAL: 8,898 SF
PROPOSED PAVEMENT· 13,695 SF
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 9,601 SF
1-
LEGEND
fr,
PUE
V777ZJ
EASEMENTS
~ EXISTING 12.5' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CllY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT ~ OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED IN 2006 AS DOCUMENT NO. 0266544, O.R.F.C. ® EXISTING 12.5 IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2003, DOCUMENT NO. 0238427, O.R.F.C. ~ EXISTING 22.0 ' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REELDEY FOR STREET RIGHT '\:::.,) OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED IN 2006 AS DOCUMENT NO. 0266544, O.R.F.C 365_,,o-" ,...,csr>
® EXISTING 22.0' IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY FOR STREET RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2003, DOCUMENT NO . 0238427, O.R.F.C
INDICATES STREETS PREVIOUSLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION
PUBLIC UTILllY EASEMENT
EXISTING PUE TO BE VACATED
SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE/SECTION LINE
EASEMENT
PROPOSED LOT
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVf.MENT
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
~~~~8 ,,s,;::t'sr> ~ 20·- 1: ' ,2·~
~ l•2· ~
VICINITY MAP
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 2
Kings View Residential Project
Site Plan
N OIS E AND V IBRATIO N IMPACT ANALYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REE DLEY, CALI FORNIA LSA
NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound . Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.
To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a sound wave, which results in the tone's range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound, and it describes a noisy or quiet environment; it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity is the average rate of sound energy transmitted through a unit area perpendicular to the direction in which the sound waves are traveling. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.
MEASUREMENT OF SOUND
Sound intensity is measured with the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound, similar to the human ear's de-emphasis of these frequencies.
Decibels (dB), unlike the linear scale (e.g., inches or pounds), are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve.
For example, 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 0 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 0 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 0 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 0 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB.
The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the sound's loudness. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound levels dissipate exponentially with distance from their noise sources.
For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment.
If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations), the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line-source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation .
P:\20231068 Ki ngs Vi ew\BACKGROUND\ Noise\ 20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 4
NOISE AND VI BRATION IMPACT AN ALYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KIN GS V IEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALI FOR NIA LSA
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Lcin) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term traffic noise impact assessment.
Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes.
For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The Lso noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The Lgo noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period . For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.
Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts, which are increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 dB and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.
Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to sound levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high sound levels affects the entire system, with prolonged sound exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of sound exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the sound level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of sound is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by a feeling of pain in the ear (i.e., the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160-165 dBA will result in dizziness or a P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 5
NOIS E AND V IBRA TION IMP ACT A NALYSIS
A UGUST 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REE DLE Y, CALIF ORNIA LSA
loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas.
Table A lists definitions of acoustical terms, and Table B shows common sound levels and their sources.
Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit of sound measurement that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.
Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in 1 second (i.e., the number of cycles per second).
A-Weighted Sound The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very Level, dBA low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A-weighted unless reported otherwise.) Loi, L10, Lso, Lgo The fast A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period, respectively.
Equivalent The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same Continuous Noise A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound .
Level, Leq
Community Noise The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the Equivalent Level, addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and CNEL after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Day/Night Noise The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the Level, Ldn addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level met er, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.
Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time. Usually a composite of sound from many sources from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.
Sources: (1) Technical Noise Supplement (Caltra ns 2013); (2) Tra nsit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
Caltrans = California Department of Transportat ion
FTA = Federal Transit Admini stration
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\Noise\ 20231068 - Kings Vi ew N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» 6
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT A NALYS IS
A UGU ST 2023
KING S VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA LSA
Table B: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources
Noise Source A-Weighted Sound
Noise Environments Subjective
Level in Decibels Evaluations
Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening 128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of Pain 64 times as loud Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of Feeling 32 times as loud Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very Loud 16 times as loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City 100 Very Loud 8 times as loud Traffic
Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very Loud -
Garbage Disposal 90 Very Loud 4 times as loud
Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud -
Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud 2 times as loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately Loud -
Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately Loud Reference level Average Office 60 Quiet One-half as loud
Suburban Street 55 Quiet -
Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet One-quarter as loud Large Transformer 45 Quiet -
Average Residence without Stereo Playing 40 Faint One-eighth as loud Soft Whisper 30 Faint -
Rustling Leaves 20 Very Faint -
Human Breathing 10 Very Faint Threshold of Hearing
- 0 Very Faint -
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
FUNDAMENTALS OF VIBRATION
Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may not be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items sitting on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with both ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet (ft) from the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft.
When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne P:\20231068 Kings Vi ew\ BACKG ROUN D\Noise\20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 7
NOIS E AN D V IBRA TION IMPAC T A NA LYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REE DLE Y, CALIF ORNIA LSA
vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying.
Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path will usually be greater than ground-borne noise.
Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train-induced ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile-driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings. Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize the potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as:
Lv = 20 log10 [V /Vref]
where "Lv'' is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), "V" is the RMS velocity amplitude, and "Vret" is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-
5 inches/second (in/sec) used in the United States.
P:\202 31068 Kings Vi ew\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_202 30824.docx «08/24/ 23» 8
NOISE AND V IBRATION IMPACT ANA LYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KINGS V IEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLE Y, CALI FORNIA LSA
REGULATORY SETTING
APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS
The applicable noise standards governing the project site include the criteria in the California Code of Regulations and the Noise Element of the City's General Plan 2030 {Noise Element).
California Code of Regulations
Interior noise levels for residential habitable rooms are regulated by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations California Noise Insulation Standards. Title 24, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, of the 2019 California Building Code requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room . A habitable room is a room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4).
City of Reedley
Noise Element of the General Plan 2030
The Noise Element provides the City's goals and policies related to noise, including the land use compatibility guidelines for community exterior noise environments. The City has identified the following goals and policies in the Noise Element:
Goals.
NE 6.lA- To protect the citizens of the City from potential harmful effect due to exposure to excessive noise.
NE 6.18 - To preserve the tranquility of residential and other noise sensitive areas by preventing noise-producing uses from encroaching upon existing and planned noise sensitive uses.
NE 6.lC - To develop a policy framework necessary to achieve and maintain a healthful noise environment.
Policies.
NE 6.1.2: In order to maintain an acceptable noise environment, the following maximum acceptable noise levels should be established for various land use designations (see Tables C and D).
NE 6.1.3: Areas subject to a DNL greater than 60 dBA are identified as noise impact zones. As part of the special permit process the proposed development project will be required to have an acoustical analysis prepared by a license engineer. The report should also include practical and reasonable mitigation measures.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 9
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT AN ALYS IS
A UGUS T 20 23
KINGS View RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REE DLE Y, CALI FORNIA LSA
NE 6.1.4: Within noise impact zones, the City will evaluate the noise impact on development proposals. Mitigating measures, including but not limited to the following, may be required:
(a) Setbacks, berms, and barriers.
(b) Acoustical design of structures.
(c) Location of structures.
NE 6.1.5: Design of all proposed development should incorporate features necessary to minimize adverse noise impacts, while also minimizing effects on surrounding lands uses.
Table C: Allowable City-Wide Noise Exposure - Transportation Location of Measurement
Indoor
Outdoor
Source : City of Reedley (2014).
Notes:
Allowable Transportation Source Noise Exposure
Noise Sensitive Land Uses New Transportation Noise Sources 45 dBA Ldn 45 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn 60 dBA Ldn
1. This table is applicable to noise sources created by either new development and/or new transportation projects.
2. Based on an evaluation of the existing condition and proposed project, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB Ldn where practical application of construction practices has been used to mitigate exterior noise exposure.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Table D: Allowable Noise Exposure - Stationary Sources
Allowable Stationary Source Noise Exposure
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Hourly Leq, dBA
Maximum Level, dBA
Source: City of Reedley (2014).
Notes:
55 50
70 65
1. As determined within outdoor activity areas of existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, if outdoor activity area locations are unknown, the allowable noise exposure shall be dete rmined at the property line of the noise sensitive use.
2. Based on an evaluation of the existing condition and proposed project, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB Ldn where practical application of construction practices has been used to mitigate exterior noise exposure.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
General Plan EIR
Construction Noise Standards. The City has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 10
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT AN ALYSIS
A UGUST 2023
KING S VIEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLE Y, CALIF ORNIA LSA
Report {EIR), construction activity is limited to the acceptable daily construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Federal Transit Administration
Although the City does not have daytime construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the specified hours to determine potential California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) noise impacts, construction noise was assessed using criteria from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual {FTA 2018) {FTA Manual). Table E shows the Federal Transit Administration's {FTA) Detailed Assessment Construction Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construction phase.
Table E: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Daytime 8-hour Leq (dBA)
Residentia I
Commercial
Industrial
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
APPLICABLE VIBRATION STANDARDS
Federal Transit Administration
80 85
90 Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance. The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table F provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.
Table G lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA Manual. FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKG ROUND\Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_202 30824.docx «08/24/ 23» 11
N OIS E AND V IBRA TIO N IMP ACT A NALYS IS
A UGUST 2023
KI NGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REEDL EY, CALI FORN IA LSA
Table F: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis Land Use Max Lv (VdB) 1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.
Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and lowpower optical microscopes (up to 20x).
Residential Night and 72 Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet Operating Rooms rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (l00x) and other equipment of low sensitivity.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 As measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over a frequency range of 8 to 80 Hertz.
FTA = Federal Transit Administration Max= maximum
Lv = velocity in decibels VdB = vibration velocity decibels Table G: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
FTA = Federal Transit Administration PPV = peak particle velocity in/sec= inch/inches per second
P:\20231068 Kings Vi ew\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 12
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT A NA LYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KING S VIEW RES IDENTI AL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA
OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
LSA
The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities . Local traffic on the roadways in the vicinity of the project {South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue) is a steady source of ambient noise.
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Noise Measurements
A long-term {24-hour) noise level measurement was conducted on July 25 and 26, 2023, using a Larson Davis Spark 706RC Dosimeter, and a short-term {15-minutes) noise level measurement was conducted using a Larson Davis LxT. Table H provides a summary of the measured hourly noise levels from the noise level measurements. Hourly noise levels at surrounding sensitive uses are as low as 35.2 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 42.7 dBA Leq during daytime hours. Long-term noise monitoring data results are provided in Appendix A. Figure 3 shows the monitoring locations.
Table H: Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Daytime Noise
Location Levels1
(dBA leq}
Near southwest corner of project site, on a tree by
LT-1 transformer, approximately 45 ft from the South 67.3 - 72 .2 Frankwood Avenue centerline.
Near western boundary of project site,
ST-13 approximately 25 ft from the Cyrier Avenue 42.7 -47.6 centerline.
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
Note: Noise measurements were conducted from July 25 to July 26, 2023, sta rting at 5:00 p.m . 1 Daytime Noise Levels= Noi se levels during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Nighttime Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Short-term measurement data estimated based on corresponding long-term. dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Ldn = day-night noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
EXISTING AIRCRAFT NOISE
Nighttime
Noise Levels2
(dBA Leq}
59.8 - 73 .1
35.2 - 48.5
Daily Noise
levels
(dBA Ldn}
74.9 50.3
Airport-related noise levels are primarily associated with aircraft engine noise made while aircraft are taking off, landing, or running their engines while still on the ground. The closest airport to the proposed project site is Reedley Municipal Airport, located approximately 6 miles (mi) north of the project site. According to Figure 6.2 of the City's General Plan, the project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. Therefore, the project would not be adversely affected by airport/airfield noise, nor would the project contribute to or result in adverse airport/airfield noise impacts.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Kings Vi ew N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» 13 LSA
$ 125 250
FEET
SOURCE: Google Earth (2023}
I :\20231068\G\Noise_Locs.ai (8/22/2023}
LEGEND
~ Project Site Boundary A ~ Short-term Noise Monitoring Location [JI ~ Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
FIGURE 3
Kings View Residential
Noise Monitoring Locations
NOIS E AND V IBRA TION IMPACT AN ALYS IS
AU GUS T 20 2 3
KI NGS VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALI FORNIA LSA
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project.
First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise-exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 ft would generate up to 84 dBA Lmax}, the effect on longer-term ambient noise levels would be small when compared to existing daily traffic volumes on South Frankwood Avenue. The results of the California Emissions Estimator Model (Cal EE Mod) for the proposed project indicate that during the grading phase, an additional 240 vehicles, consisting of worker and hauling trips, would be added to the roadway adjacent to the project site. Because the existing traffic volume on South Frankwood Avenue is considerably more than 240, constructionrelated vehicle trips would not approach existing daily traffic volumes and traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA CNEL. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction, which includes site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table I lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006}.
In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table I is used to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation :
where:
L,,( equip) = E.L. + 10 log(U .F.) - 20 lo{~)
Leq (equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period.
E.L. = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 ft.
U.F. = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\BACKG ROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 15
NOISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT A NALYS IS
A UGUST 2023
KINGS V IEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALIF ORNIA LSA
D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment.
Table I: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%)1 Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at SO Feet2
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide, Table 1 (FHWA 2006).
Note : Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the Central Artery/ Tunnel program to be consistent with the City of Boston's Noise Code for the "Big Dig" project.
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Using the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:
Leq (composite)= 10 • log10 (t 1oi~)
Using the equations from the methodology above, the reference information in Table I, and the construction equipment list provided, the composite noise level of each construction phase was calculated. The project construction composite noise levels at a distance of 50 ft would range from P:\20231068 Kings Vi ew\BACKGROUND\Noise\2023 1068 - Kings Vi ew N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 16
N OI SE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT A NALYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDEN TIA L PROJECT
REE DL EY, CALI FORN IA LSA
74 dBA L eq to 85 dBA L eq, with the highest noise levels occurring during the grading and paving phases.
Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:
Leq (at distance X) = Leq (at SO feet) - 20 * lo g10 (:0) In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.
Table J shows the nearest sensitive uses to the project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite noise levels expected during construction . These noise level projections do not consider intervening topography or barriers. Construction equipment calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Table J: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level Distance (feet) Composite Noise (dBA Leq) at so feet 1 Level (dBA Leq)
Residences (South and North) 85 81
Residences (West)
85 280 70
Source : Compiled by LSA (2023).
1 The composite construction noise level represents the grading/paving phases, whi ch are expected to result in the greatest noise level as compared to oth er phases.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
While construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site sensitive residential uses to the south and north would reach an average noise level of 81 dBA L eq during daytime hours. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously and, therefore, are assumed to be rather conservative in nature. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed.
The proposed project would comply with the construction hours specified above, which states that construction activities are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. As it relates to offsite uses, construction-related noise impacts would exceed the 80 dBA L eq construction noise level criteria, as established by the FTA for residential land uses for the average daily condition as modeled from the center of the project site. However, construction would be temporary and within the acceptable daily construction hours and therefore the impacts will be intermittent and considered less than significant. Best construction practices presented at the end of this analysis shall be implemented to minimize noise impacts to surrounding receptors.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\BACKGROUN D\ Noise\ 2023 1068 - Ki ngs View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 17
N OISE AND V IBRA TION IMP ACT AN ALYS IS
A UGUS T 2023
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
KINGS V IEW RES IDENTIAL PROJECT
REE DLE Y, CALI FORNI A LSA
This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS (VdB) and assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while calculating vibration levels in PPV is best for characterizing the potential for damage.
Table K shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 ft from the construction vibration source. As shown in Table K, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (expected to be used for this project) generate approximately 0.089 PPV in/sec or 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the FTA Manual. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project setback line).
Table K: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction
Equipment
Equipment
Reference PPV /Lv at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec)
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer2 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks2 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. 2 Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site. µin/sec= microinches per second Lv = velocity in decibels ft = foot/feet PPV = peak particle velocity
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec= inch/inches per second
RMS= root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibel s
Lv (VdB)1
104
93 94
87 87
87 86
79 58
The formulae for vibration transmission are provided below, and Tables Land M provide a summary of off-site construction vibration levels.
LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) - 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref X (25/D)l.5
As shown in Table F, above, the threshold at which vibration levels would result in annoyance would be 78 VdB for daytime residential uses. As shown in Table G, the FTA guidelines indicate that for a non-engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is
0.2 in/sec in PPV.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\2023 1068 - Ki ngs Vi ew N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 18
N O ISE AND V IBR A TI O N I MPAC T A N A LYS I S
A U G U ST 20 23
KING S V IEW R ES I D EN TI A L P ROJE CT
R EED LEY, C A LIF O RNI A LSA
Table L: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor
Receptor Reference Vibration Distance (ft) 2 Vibration Level (Location) Level (VdB) at 25 ft 1 (VdB)
Residences (South 85 71 and North) 87
Residences (West) 280 56
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construct ion. 2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses. ft = foot/feet
VdB = vibration velocity decibel s
Table M: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor
Receptor Reference Vibration
Distance (ft)2 Vibration Level
(Location) Level (PPV} at 25 ft 1 (PPV}
Residences (South 30 0.068 and North) 0.089
Residences (West) 65 0.021
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures. ft = foot/feet
PPV = pea k particle velocity
Based on the information provided in Table L, vibration levels are expected to approach 71 VdB at the closest residential uses located immediately south and north of the project site, which is below the 78 VdB threshold for annoyance.
Based on the information provided in Table M, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.068 PPV in/sec at the nearest surrounding structures and would not exceed the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower. Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.
Because construction activities are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., vibration impacts would not occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\ 20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 19
N OIS E AND V IB RA TI O N I M PACT A NA LYS I S
A UGUS T 2023
K I N GS V IEW R ES ID ENTIA L P ROJECT
R EE DL EY, C A LIF ORNIA LSA
LONG-TERM OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
In order to assess the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed project, LSA estimates that the proposed project would result in an increase of 81 average daily trips (ADT). The existing (2004) ADT on South Frankwood Avenue is 4,260 (City of Reedley Technical Library- Traffic Engineering Studies and Maps). While the current traffic volume on South Frankwood Avenue is likely higher, using the 2004 volumes would be considered conservative. The following equation was used to determine the potential impacts of the project:
Change in CNEL = 10 loglO W ce+p)/Vcexisting)]
where: Vexisting = existing daily volumes
Ve+p = existing daily volumes plus project
Change in CNEL = increase in noise level due to the project The results of the calculations show that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL is expected along South Frankwood Avenue. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the project site resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
STATIONARY OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS TO OFF-SITE RECEIVERS It expected that the proposed residential uses would install heating, ventilation, and_ air conditioning equipment. It is expected that the equipment installed at each proposed building would comply with the City's noise standards presented in Table D.
LONG-TERM TRAFFIC-RELATED VIBRATION IMPACTS
The proposed project would not generate vibration levels related to on-site operations. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for onroad vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 ft from the roadways that contain project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required .
P: \ 20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\ 20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/ 24/ 23» 20
NOISE AND V IBRA TIO N IMPACT ANAL YS IS
A UGUS T 2 0 23
KING S VIEW RES IDENTIA L PROJECT
REEDLEY, CALI FORN IA LSA
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
The dominant source of noise in the project vicinity is traffic noise from roadways in the vicinity of the project.
EXTERIOR NOISE ASSESSMENT
To assess exterior noise levels at the project site, as shown in Table H, long-term noise level measurements were gathered. The daily noise levels show that noise levels at the project site approach 75 dBA Ldn at the proposed building closest to South Frankwood Avenue (Building 6).
Furthermore, hourly noise levels at the project site are as high as 73.1 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 72.2 dBA Leq during daytime hours. As specified above, for residential uses, an exterior noise level of 60 dBA Lcin or less is acceptable. The closest amenity area where humans will spend time is the private yard area between Building 5 and Building 6. After distance attenuation and a minimum reduction of 15 dBA provided by shielding from Building 6, the noise level at the private yard would be reduced below the acceptable level of 60 dBA Ldn - Additionally, all other private yards are located farther from South Frankwood Avenue and would be shielded by the proposed buildings. Therefore, noise levels at outdoor noise-sensitive uses would not exceed the City's exterior allowable noise exposure level of 60 dBA Ldn•
INTERIOR NOISE ASSESSMENT
As discussed above, per the City's General Plan, an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn or less is required for all noise-sensitive rooms. Based on the expected future exterior noise levels at the project site approaching 75 dBA Ldn at the proposed building closest to South Frankwood Avenue (Building 6), a minimum noise reduction of 30 dBA would be required.
Based on reference information from transmission loss test reports for various Milgard windows (Milgard 2008), the necessary reduction can be achieved with standard building construction and upgraded windows with Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings of 30-35, depending on the window-to-glass ratio, at Building 6, which would not be shielded by a noise barrier. For all other buildings, which are farther from South Frankwood Avenue and would be shielded by the proposed buildings, with standard building construction along with standard windows (typically in the STC 25- 28 range), interior noise levels of 45 d BA Ldn or less would be achieved.
Once final plans are available to detail the exterior wall construction and a window manufacturer has been chosen, a Final Acoustical Report would be required to confirm the reduction capability of the exterior fa~ades and to identify any specific upgrades necessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ld n or below.
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Kings Vi ew N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 21
N OISE AND V IBRA TION IMPACT AN ALYS IS
AU GUS T 2023
KINGS VIEW RES IDENT IA L PROJECT
REEDLEY , CALIF ORNIA LSA
BEST CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
In addition to compliance with the City's General Plan EIR allowed daily hours of construction between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., the following best construction practices would further minimize construction noise impacts:
• The project construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturer's standards. • The project construction contractor shall locate staging areas away from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of project development.
• The project construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site whenever feasible.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\ Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 22
NOISE AND VI BRATION IMPACT A NA LYSIS
AU GUS T 2023
KINGS V IE W RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
REEDLE Y, CALIFORNI A LSA
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September.
City of Reedley. 2014. General Plan 2030. February 18.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA}. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User/s Guide.
January. Washington, D.C. Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_ noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf (accessed August 2023).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Office of Planning and Environment. Report No. 0123. September.
Milgard. 2008. Various Transmission Loss Reports.
P:\20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\Noise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/23» 23
NOIS E AND VIB RAT IO N IMP ACT AN ALYS IS
AUG US T 2023
APPENDIX A
KINGS VIE W RES ID EN TIAL PR OJEC T
REE DLE Y, CALIF OR NIA
NOISE MONITORING DATA
P: \ 20231068 Kings View\BACKGROUND\NDise\20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» LSA
Noise Measurement Survey- 24 HR
Project Number: _2---'-0_2..;c._3 _l 0-'--6'----'8'-------- Proj ect Name: Kings View Residential
Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:18571)
Site Number: LT-1 Date: __ 7/_2_5/_2_0_23 __ Time: From 5 :00 p.m. To 5:00 p.m.
Site Location: Near southeast corner of project site, on a tree by transformer, approximately 45 feet from South Frankwood Avenue centerline.
Primary Noise Sources: Regular traffic noise on S. Frankwood Avenue Occasional aircraft noise
Comments: -------------------------------
Photo:
Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1 Start Time Date
5:00 PM 7/25/23
6:00 PM 7/25/23
7:00 PM 7/25/23
8:00 PM 7/25/23
9:00 PM 7/25/23
10:00 PM 7/25/23
11:00 PM 7/25/23
12:00 AM 7/26/23
1:00AM 7/26/23
2:00 AM 7 /26/23
3:00AM 7 /26/23
4:00AM 7/26/23
5:00AM 7/26/23
6:00 AM 7 /26/23
7:00 AM 7 /26/23
8:00 AM 7/26/23
9:00AM 7/26/23
10:00AM 7 /26/23
11:00 AM 7/26/23
12:00 PM 7/26/23
1:00 PM 7 /26/23
2:00 PM 7 /26/23
3:00 PM 7/26/23
4:00 PM 7 /26/23
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023).
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Noise Level ( dBA)
Leq Lmax
71.4 82.6
70.3 88.1
69.8 86.9
69.1 86.9
67.3 84.1
66.0 88.6
63.7 83.7
61.2 82.4
61.2 80.7
59.8 82.4
62.3 83.2
68.6 85.5
73 .1 84.6
71.8 87.8
71.5 85.5
71.3 84.6
72.1 87.1
71.3 83.9
71.7 86.9
71.5 85.3
71.6 87.4
71.3 84.6
72.2 85.5
71.4 81.8
Lnax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum measured sound level
Lmin
38.5 38.1
40.1 40.9
43.0 39.5
37.3 38.9
39.0 41.3
38.5 39.7
45.6 45.6
46.3 45.4
45.6 40.8
40.5 38.2
39.3 37.9
37.6 46.1
93.0 90 .0
87.0 84.0
81.0 cr 78 .0
_JJ 75 .0
<l'. 72 .0
~ 69 .0 - 66.0 OJ 63 .0 ~ 60 .0 __J 57.0 OJ 54.0 )§ 51 .0 z 48.0
45.0 42 .0
39.0 36.0
33 .0
30.0 I
I
Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement
LT-1
r7 r7 I r7 r···-,
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I , "' I I
• ' I i I i I I
I • • I i I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I _ I __ L_I __ IL_I_ I_ L_I_ I_ I__J ____ I ___ L_J __ L_J _ I 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 2 2 ~ 2 ~ Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <t: <{ <! Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
? 0 ? 0 0 0 ? 0 ? ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 0 ? 0
lf) \D r--- 00 6-i 0 rl r-i rl N M -st lf) lD r--- co 6-i ~ rl N rl r-i M -st rl rl rl rl rl Time of Day
- Lmax
- Lmin
Noise Measurement Survey
Project Number: _2_0_2_3_10_6_8 _____ _ Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab Project Name: Kings View Residential Equipment: Larson Davis LxT Site Number: ST-1 Date: __ 7-'--'-/_2----'-5/_2--'--02-----'3'-----_ Time: From 4: 18 p.m. To 4:33 p.m.
Site Location: Near western border of project site, approximately 25 feet away from Cyrier Avenue centerline.
Primary Noise Sources: Background traffic noise on S. Frankwood Avenue Occasional traffic on Cyrier A venue
Measurement Results
dBA
Leq 47.4 At mosp h enc . C on d'f 1 ions:
Lmax 68.2 Maximum Wind Velocity (mph)
Lmin 36.0 Average Wind Velocity (mph)
Lpeak 97.8 Temperature (F)
L2 55.8 Relative Humidity(%)
Ls 49.6 Comments:
L2s 42.9
Lso 40.3
SEL
Comments:
7.8 4.4
98.0 17.0
Location Photo:
N OISE AND VIB RA TIO N IMP AC T AN ALYS IS
AUG US T 2023
APPENDIX B
KINGS V IEW RES ID ENTI AL PR OJECT
REE DLEY , CALI FORNIA
CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
P:\20231068 Kings Vi ew\BACKGROUND\Noise\ 20231068 - Kings View N&V Report_20230824.docx «08/24/ 23» LSA
Construction Calculations
Phase: Site Preparation
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Grader 1 85
Tractor 1 84
Phase: Grading
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Grader 1 85
Dozer 1 82
Tractor 1 84
Ph ase : B UI 'Idmg " C onstrust1on
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Crane 1 81
Man Lift 2 75
Tractor 2 84
Phase:PavinQ
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Paver 1 77
Drum Mixer 4 80
Roller 1 80
Tractor 1 84
Phase:Architectural CoatinQ
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Compressor (air) 1 78
Sources: RCNM
1 - Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power dBA - A-we ighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
usage Distance to Ground
Factor1 Receptor (ft) Effects
40 50 0.5
40 50 0.5
Combined at 50 feet
Combined at Receptor 85 feet
Combined at Receptor 280 feet
usage Distance to Ground
Factor1 Receptor (ft) Effects
40 50 0.5
40 50 0.5
40 50 0.5
Combined at 50 feet
Combined at Receptor 85 feet
Combined at Receptor 280 feet
Usage Distance to Ground
Factor1 Receptor (ft) Effects
16 50 0.5
20 50 0.5
40 50 0.5
Combined at 50 feet
Combined at Receptor 85 feet
Usage Distance to Ground
Factor1 Receptor (ft) Effects
50 50 0.5
50 50 0.5
20 50 0.5
40 50 0.5
Combined at 50 feet
Combined at Receptor 85 feet
Combined at Receptor 280 feet
Usage Distance to Ground
Factor1 Receptor (ft) Effects
40 50 0.5
Combined at 50 feet
Combined at Receptor 85 feet
Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax
85 84
88 83
73 I
I
I
Leq
81 80
84 79
69 Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax
85 82
84 89
84 74
Leq
81 78
80 85
80 70
Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax
81 75
84 86
82 Leq
73 71
83 84
79 Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax
77 80
80 84
87 82
72 Leq
74 83
73 80
85 81
70 Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax
78 78
73 I
I
Leq
74 74
69 LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL STUD Y/M ITIGATED N EGATIVE DECLARATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\ Public\Ki ngs _ View _ISM ND-Pu bl ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/20/23 )
IN IT IAL STUDY/MITIGATED N EGAT IVE DECLARAT ION
SEPTEMBER 2023
APPENDIX C
KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL P RO JEC T
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA LSA
TRIP GENERATION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM
P:\2023 1068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Publ ic\Ki ngs_ View_lSM ND-Publ ic_Review _Draft.docx (09/20/23) LSA
June 15, 2023
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Subject: Kings View Residential Project Traffic Memorandum (LSA Project No. 20231068) Dear Mr. Horton:
CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has prepared this Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis memorandum (Memo) for the proposed Kings View Residential (project) in the City of Reedley (City). The project site is located northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue in the City. It is bounded by roadways to two sides: South Frankwood Avenue to the east, and Cyrier Avenue to the west. The project will include 12 two-story townhouses in six buildings. Access to the project would be provided from South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
The site is currently zoned as R-1-SP (Single Family Residential) and the General Plan land use identified these parcels as Low Density Residential. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to High Density Residential and a rezone to Multi-Family Residential (RM-3).
Figure 1 (all figures and tables attached) illustrates the regional and project location. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the project.
The objectives of this Memo are as follows:
• To estimate the trip generation for the proposed project and determine whether a detailed Level of Service (LOS) study will be required for the project; and • To determine whether a detailed VMT analysis will be required for the proposed project.
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
The City of Reedley typically follows the Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) within the County of Fresno (dated May 2018), for traffic analysis purposes. According to the County's TIS Guidelines, a detailed LOS study may not be required if the project is estimated to add less than 10 peak hour trips at any intersection within the vicinity of the project site.
Trip generations for the project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for Land Use 220 - "Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit". Table A summarizes the project trip generation and shows that the proposed project is anticipated to generate 5 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 6 trips in the p.m. peak 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa .net LSA
hour, and 81 daily trips. Since the anticipated number of peak hour trips generated by the proposed project is lower than the 10-trip threshold established by the County's TIS Guidelines, a detailed LOS study may not be required for this project.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay arid level of service as the sole basis of determining CEQA impacts. With the implementation of the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project's effect on VMT.
The city has adopted the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG} Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, dated January 2021 for preparation of VMT analysis for projects within the city. Based on the adopted guidelines, a project generating less than 500 daily trips can be considered a low VMT generator and can be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. As shown in Table A, the project is anticipated to generate 81 daily trips, which is less than the Fresno COG Guidelines' daily trip threshold of 500 daily trips. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis may not be required for the project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951} 781-9310 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
LSA t
Principal
~~~PE Attachments:
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
Table A: Project Trip Generation
6/15/23 (P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Kings View Apt_Trip Gen and VMT Memo.docx) 2 LSA
FIGURES
6/15/23 (P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Kings View Apt_Trip Gen and VMT Memo.docx) 3
LSA LEGEND
lc:::::::i) Projectlocation
600
FEIT
SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2021; Goggle Earth, 2021 . --- -- P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\Traffic\GIS\Figl _RegProj l oc\Figl _RegProjl o .aprx (06/02/2023) FIGURE 1
Kings View Residential
Trip Generation and VMT Memorandum
Regional and Project Location
i[~~;,r j .. I
-.
SASAKI AVE
- --r-
. ~
/ ·
·: I
I
;~;\;;} t=~~~:.' ~- -~~t=-
sr ------,
' ~
LSA
$ 10 20
FEET
:, 1~,t :•ir. ,·.o;;,~ rr·irr iO D[ f!F'L"cCCO w1-:-11 5 . p,• ~KC~I, ::,•,tt SOURCE: Vang Inc. Co nsulting Engin eers, Feb ru ary 2023 .
P:\20231068 Kings View\ PRODUCTS\ Traffic\GIS\Site Plan (6/1/ 2023) :;5~~:1?{~rf5
/::
if ii
FIGURE 2
Kings View Residenua/
Trip Generauon and VMT Memorandum
Conceptual Site Plan
LSA
TABLES
6/15/23 (P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Kings View Apt_Trip Gen and VMT Memo.docx) 4 LSA
Table A - Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Kings View Residential 12 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
Trip Generation 1 4 5 4 2 6 81
Notes:
DU = Dwelling Units
1 Rates from the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), Land Use 220 - "Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit", Setting/Location - "General Urban/Suburban."
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Trip Gen.xlsx\Trip Gen (6/13/2023)
LSA KING S V IEW RESI DE NTIA L PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL STUDY/M ITI GATED N EGATIVE D ECLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P:\20231068 Ki ngs View\PRODUCTS\ IS-MND\Public\ Kings_View_lSMND-Public_Revi ew_D raft.docx (09/20/ 23)
IN ITIAL STUD Y/MITIGATED NEGATI VE DE CLARAT ION
SEPTEMBER 2023
APPENDIX D
KINGS VIEW RE SIDENTI AL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY , CAL IFORNIA
AB 52 AND SB 18 CONSULTATION LETTERS
P:\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\IS-M ND\Public\Kings _ View _ISM ND-Publ ic_Revi ew _Ora ft.docx (09/20/23) LSA
September 18, 2023
Chairperson Leo Sisco
C/O Cultural Department
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Leo Sisco.:
Pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Reedley hereby extends an invitation to consult on the CEQA review of the project described below with regard to the protection of, and/or mitigation of project impacts, on cultural resources that may occur within the project site.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80 ), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
SB 18 & AB 52 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04- Kings View Townhomes
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
Should you wish to consult with the City on the review of this project, please respond in writing within 30 days of the receipt of this letter to the project planner at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 30 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
~ ur_;_
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians
Janet Bill, Chairperson
P.O. Box 2226
Oakhurst, CA 93644
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Janet Bill:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04 - Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
~fl[;_
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Table Mountain Rancheria
Brenda Lavell, Chairperson
P.O. Box 410
Friant, CA 93626
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Brenda Lavell:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04- Kings View Townhomes
. "'\ _; - . ! ·: . 1i\ '< ··~ :;,~;i~
' _ _,_,.,.,.__ • ..... _.__,.:' 'l '··.··.··\•.
- ~~ -<'~:.. I ! . : ,;.·, 'L~ \ .• j '· h~'i
,,~,.-:•~ . -~- t •,r:· :·rJ' tt:L:,·~. ;·- -~J,J s A~D:. J~_-©P. ~_:._ 4_.·_·;-1: I ; ''---<. ' -;;:, ., ,_, I • f ,~ i'!r-'. il': ·j/ ·t:. .-r--~ L :a -~' l l~-;~~-i-·_·•· __ t·I,',;'~~! ., "'1 ."'--1 !I"' . ... E:DavisAve . ~ .. ~:o'avis:A; e ~ - "w-·r
----·:~ f'T,1 I • i
:•~•~:,•)-: ~ '~.
, ·r· I: f : 0 '., . ig_i
r·,
PROJECT LOCATION
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
'12~ Cl(;: __
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Traditional Choinumni Tribe
David Alvarez, Chairperson
2415 E. Houston Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson David Alvarez:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80 ), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04 - Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
"12~ UG- Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government
Robert Ledger, Chairperson
2191 West Pico Ave
Fresno, CA 93705
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Robert Ledger:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04- Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
~~ UCi-- Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson
P.O Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Katherine Perez:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04- Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
~~ fJG:_
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O Box 589
Porterville, CA 93258
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Neil Peyron:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. · The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel {APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04- Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
,-12~ fJG:'_
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
September 18, 2023
Wuksachi Indian tribe/ Eshom Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA 93906
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov/
RE: General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 - "Kings View Townhomes" Project, City of Reedley; Fresno County, California
To Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow:
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), the City of Reedley is seeking consultation from California Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding the protection of cultural resources that may occur within the project site. Your contact information was provided to us by the NAHC when we inquired about Tribal contacts in the area of the project.
Description of the Proposed Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-04 pertains to the reclassification of two undeveloped parcels of land. A .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80), and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) that are currently designated as Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The proposed General Plan designation would reclassify the entire project from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Rezone Application No. 2021-07 pertains to the reclassification of two parcels of land totaling .902-acres (365-220-80, 365-220-81) that is currently assigned as R-1 (SP) (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed Rezone Application would reclassify a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-80) and a .451-acre parcel (APN 365-220-81) to RM-3 (Residential) zone district designation. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-07 pertains to the construction of 12-unit in 6 two-story townhome duplexes. Each unit is approximately 1,483 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The parking proposed would be 1 garage parking and one tandem parking stall per unit plus a total of 4 guest parking stalls. 28 total parking stalls for all proposed buildings. There are proposed new driveway approach on Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue.
Project Location: The project area is located between South Frankwood Avenue and Cyrier Avenue and is just North of West Lilac Ave, in Reedley, CA See below for a Project Vicinity Map.
SB 18 - Tribal Consultation Letter
GPA 2021-04 - Kings View Townhomes
Should you wish to participate in consultation with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the project area, please contact the project planner within 90 days from the date of this letter, or sooner if possible at the following address:
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Email: [email protected]
(599) 637-4200, ext. 286
Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that you have declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or at the address provided above should you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
"12.~ fJG,:_
Rodney L. Horton
Community Development Director
LSA KINGS VIEW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF REEDLEY, CA LIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
INIT IAL STUD Y/MITI GATE D N EGATIVE DE CLA RATION
SEPTEMBER 2023
P :\20231068 Kings View\PRODUCTS\ IS-M N D\Public\Kings _ View _ISM N D-Publ ic_Revi ew _Dra ft.docx (09/20/23) RESOLUTION NO. 2023-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-04
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04, re-designating two contiguous undeveloped parcels situated northwest of the intersection of South Frankwood Avenue and West Lilac Avenue (APNs 365-220-80 and 365-220-81) from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Medium Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 was evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the project, in totality of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -04, Rezone Application No. 2021-07, and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2021-07, was evaluated and environmentally assessed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act as determined through a Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated September 26, 2023, prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the City of Reedley declares that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated September 26, 2023, has been prepared, posted and filed in accordance with State CEQA Sections 15070-15075 by the City of Reedley as the Lead Agency; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code and the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, a Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council was mailed to surrounding property owners on December 11, 2023, and was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 14, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at a Regular Meeting on January 9, 2024, held a public hearing to review the general plan amendment application and the accompanying environmental assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley using their independent judgment hereby approves General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 based on the following:
1. The above recitals are true and correct; and
2. The City of Reedley Community Development Department has determined that Environmental Assessment No. 2023-16, dated September 26, 2023, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, is appropriate for the project; and
3. The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-04 is consistent with the guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and