Sanger City Council
November 3, 2022

ANY WRITINGS OR DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO A

REGULAR MEETING REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, AT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE & CITY HALL LOBBY LOCATED AT 1700 7TH STREET AND SANGER LIBRARY 1812 7TH STREET, SANGER, CA 93657. THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, WWW.CI.SANGER.CA.US.

AGENDA

SANGER CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
T
HURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2022
6:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER
1700 7th Street, Sanger, California 93657
Prior to action by the Council on any item on this agenda, the public may comment on that item.

A. CALL TO ORDER
B. OPENING CEREMONIES
Invocation
Flag
Salute
Roll Call
C.

AGENDA AP PROVAL, ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS
D.

PUBLIC F ORUM
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on any matter not otherwise on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the City Council.

Speakers shall address all comments to the Mayor and the Council as a body and not to any particular Councilmember or member of the staff. Speakers should limit their comments to three (3) minutes.)
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW 72 HOURS

PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AT THE SANGER LIBRARY, CITY CLERK’S

OFFICE AND THE SANGER CITY HALL
LOBBY.

This meeting will be available for public viewing and participation through Zoom.

Webl ink: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87059265693
Telepho ne number: 1-669-900-9128
Meeting ID: 870 5926 5693
Public comment will be accepted in person, via Zoom, and by email at [email protected]. 1 Cit y Council Agenda
November 3, 2022

E. CONS

ENT CALENDAR
(Matt ers listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, a member of the audience or a Councilmember may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and it will be considered separately.)

1. S
UBJEC T: Minutes of the Special and Re gular Meetings held on October 20, 2022.

R
ECOMMENDATION: That t he City Council approve.

2. S
UBJECT: Z oning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-3.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-09, approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-3, amending Section 90-994 of the Sanger City Code adding an exemption for public hearing notice requirements under certain circumstances, and a finding of exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the project.

3. S
UBJECT: Fu ll-Time Code Enforcement Officer Position
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-87 approving a new classification and setting a salary range for a full-time Code Enforcement Officer position in the Community Development Department.

4. S
UBJECT: Tech nical Correction to Resolutions for New Water Well Funding Application.

RECOMMENDATION: That
the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-88 rescinding Authorizing Resolution No. 2022-79 and Reimbursement Resolution No. 2022-80;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-89 authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit a Financial Assistance Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the City of Sanger New Water Well Project (Authorizing Resolution);

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-90 designating the amount of project expenditure s to be reimbursed by the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the City of Sanger New Water Well Project (Reimbursement Resolution).

5. S
UBJECT: Em ergency Removal and Installation of a Traffic Signal Pole – Academy Avenue and North Avenue – Additional Purchasing Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: That
the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-91
reviewing the emergency action taken by the City Manager to approve the proposal from A-C Electric Company to repair the damaged traffic signal located at the intersection of Academy and North Avenues in the amount of $52,475.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute the documents on behalf of the City. 2 City Council Agenda
November 3, 2022

F. P UBLIC HEARING

1. S UBJECT: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration for N ew City of Sanger Water Well.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing.

Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022-92, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Sanger New Water Well Project.

G. D

EPARTMENT REPORTS

1. S UBJECT: City of Sanger ’s Local Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

RECOMMENDATION: T hat the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-93 amending the City’s local Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

2. S UBJECT: Approval of Final Map, Agreements and Covenants for Tract No. 5826 – Phase 1 of Tract No. 5826.

RECOMMENDATION: Th
at the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-94,
approving:

1. T
he Final Map for Tract No. 5826, Phase 1 of Tract No. 5826;

2. The Subdivision Agreement for Final Map of Tract No. 5826, Phase 1 of Tract No. 5826;

3. The Improvement and Credit/Reimbursement Agreement, D.R. Horton CA3, Inc. for Tract No. 5826, Phase 1 of Tract No. 5826;

4. Statement of Covenants Affecting Land Development Acknowledging Right to Farm Law for the Final Map of Tract No. 5826, Phase 1 of Tract No. 5826.

3. SUB
JEC T: Updates to the 10- Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

RECOMMENDAT
ION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-95 approving updates to the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 with use of ARPA funds, impact fees, and other funds, and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget to reflect such updates.

H. CI T

Y M ANAGER/STAFF COMMUNICATION

I. MAT TE

RS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
(This portion of the meeting is reserved for Council Members to initiate new matters and to request updates and/or status on existing matters. Under this section, the Council may also take action on any items specifically agendized.)

1. Wastewater Treatment Plan Update.

2. Discussion and direction regarding Geary Avenue Improvement Project.

3 City Council Agenda
November 3, 2022

J. ADJOUR NME NT

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate at this meeting, please contact the City Cl erk’s Office at 559/876-6300 Ext 1350. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City Clerk to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II).

I certify under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 28th day of October 2022.

Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk

4 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022
5:30 PM
Council Chamber
1700 7TH Street, Sanger, California 93657
A. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council called their Special Meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

B. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Eli Ontiveros, Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Montelongo

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Martinez , Councilmember Esmeralda Hurtado C. AGENDA APPROVAL
The Council my motion of Councilmember Garza approved the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Montelongo and approved by the following vote:

AYES: ONTIVEROS, GARZA, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: MARTINEZ, HURTADO
D. PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION
There were no public comments.

E. CLOSED SESSION
The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:32 PM.

1. Pursuant to Gover nment Code Section 54956.8

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: APN 332-042-59T and APN 332-042-94T
Under Negotiation: Terms of Payment
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez and Councilmember Hurtado arrived after the start of the Closed Session and joined the Council in Closed Session.

The Council reconvened their Special Meeting at 6:05 PM.

F. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Hilda Montoy announced that the City Council voted to terminate the sale for property APN 332-042-59T and APN 332-042-94T by a vote of 5 to 0.

G. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned their Special Meeting at 6:06 PM.

ATTE ST:

Cor ina Tamez, Deputy City Clerk
Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Sanger City Council E-1
5 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Sanger City Council

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022
6:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER
1700 7th Street, Sanger, California 93657

A. CALL TO ORDER

The City Council called their meeting to order at 6:07 PM.

B. OP

ENING CER EMONIES

The invocation was offered by Pastor Garret Martin.

The flag salute was led by Mayor Eli Ontiveros.

Roll Call:

Present: Mayor Eli Ontiveros, Mayor Pro Tem Da niel Martinez, Councilmember Humberto Garza, Councilmember Esmeralda Hurtado, Councilmember Michael Montelongo

Absent: NONE

C. A GE

NDA APPROVAL, ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS

Councilmember Montelongo asked for item L.1. to be moved right after Public Hearing.

The Council by motion of Mayor Ontiveros approved the agenda as amended, moving item L.1. after Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Martinez and approved by the following vote:

AYES: ONTIVEROS, MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

D. C

EREMONIAL MATTERS

1. Introduction of newly appointed Police Officers Andres Morales and Samuel Van Hoogmoed.

2. Introduction of newly promoted Corporal Julian Aceves-Cruz and Corporal Baudelio Ornelas.
6 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

Chief Greg Garner introduced new Police Officers Andres Morales and Samuel Van Hoogmoed; and newly promoted Corporal Julian Aceves-Cruz and Corporal Baudelio Ornelas. The Oath of Office was administered by Deputy City Clerk Corina Tamez.

E. P RESENTATIONS

1. Measure S Grantee Quarterly Report – SAM Academy.

Dr. Jerry Valadez, Sergio and Bobbie presented on the item.

F. W

ORKSHOP

1. Long Term Capital Plan including ARPA Funding.

City Manager Tim Chapa presented on the item, noting that the item would be brought back to the City Council for consideration and action at the next meeting.

Administrative Services Director Patrick Chaffee and City Engineer Josh Rogers presented on the item.

Public Comment:

Osvaldo Vera, boxing coach, said that 180 construction will bring more traffic congestion and more pollution, and that there is a water problem.

Kevin Carter said to do what we can with what we have today. The development may help downtown.

Unidentified person said the presentation was good. He would like to see the money applied to downtown.

There were no public comments by Zoom or email.

The City Council was in agreement to consider Option 2 and include a sewer update.

G. P UBL

IC FORUM

Public Comment:

Lupita Gonzalez Padilla asked for an update on her friend’s flooding incident. She introduced the family that experienced the flooding.

Delores Melendez said there were street lights out at District 2 at 9 th street and 12th street. She
asked when the playground equipment at JFK park would be fixed and she handed out photos of the playground; when would the sidewalk at 10th and 9th be fixed; and asked about the smell at the area of Annadale and North Ave.

7 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

Unidentified person said today would probably be his last meeting. He will start helping Father Hanibal House. He said there is no lighting at Almond and Bethel Avenues.

Osvaldo Vera said that Councilmember Hurtado is right, it is about the people. The enemy of the people is drugs.

There were no public comments by Zoom or email.

H. CONS

ENT CALENDAR

The Council by motion of Mayor Pro Tem Martinez approved the following items on the Consent Calendar:

1. S
UB JECT: APPROVED - Minutes of the Regular Meetings held on October 6, 2022.

2. S
UBJECT : APPROVED - Remote City Council Meetings under New Brown Act Requirements (AB 361).

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-81 Reauthorizing Remote Teleconference Public Meetings by the City Council and All Boards, Commissions, and Standing Committees of the City in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361.

3. SUB JEC T: INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Warrants including Check Nos. 87505 through 87656.

4. S UBJECT : APPROVED - Payroll including Direct Deposit Nos. 57722 through 57983; Payroll Check Nos. 58631 through 58687; and Benefit Check Nos. 1820 through 1827.

5. SUB JEC T: INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Police Department Monthly Report.

6. SUB JEC T: INFORMATIONAL ITEM - Fire Department Monthly Report.

7. SUBJ ECT: APPROVED - Purchase of New Police Vehicles.

The City Council authorized the City Purchasing Agent to purchase two (2) new police vehicles for patrol purposes from Fahrney Automotive Group in Selma and make payment at a total cost of $106,456.28 from the Measure S Fund.

8. S
UBJECT: APPROVED - Amendment to Firefighter I Job Description.

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-82 approving the amended job description for the Firefighter I position.

8 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garza and approved by the following vote:

AYES: ONTIVEROS, MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
I. P

UBLIC HEARING

1. S UBJECT: APPROVED - Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-3.

The City Council conducted a public hearing; waived the full reading and introduced Ordinance No. 2022-09, approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-3, amending Section 90-994 of the Sanger City Code adding an exemption for public hearing notice requirements under certain circumstances, and a finding of exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the project.

The City Council held a public hearing to discuss Zoning Ordinance Amendment No 2022-3.

No public comment was offered.

Community Development Director David Brletic presented on the item.

The City Council by motion of Mayor Pro Tem Martinez approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-3, amending Section 90-994 of the Sanger City Code adding an exemption for public hearing notice requirements under certain circumstances, and a finding of exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the project. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garza and approved by the following vote:

AYES: MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: ONTIVEROS
ABSENT: NONE

L. MATTE

RS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

1. S UBJE CT: APPROVED - Pedestrian Crossing Improvements – Greenwood Avenue and 10th Street.

C
ity Manager Tim Chapa presented on the item.

The City Council by motion of Councilmember Montelongo approved Resolution No. 2022-86, appropriating $40,000 from the City Council One-Time Programs for a project to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons to improve pedestrian safety at the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and 10
th Street. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garza and approved by the following vote:

9 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

AYES: ONTIVEROS, MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

J. D

EPARTMENT REPORTS

1. SUB JEC T: APPROVED - Amendment to the 2020 Community Development Block Grant Program – Coronavirus Response Business Assistance Program Agreement.

C
ouncilmember Hurtado recused herself at 7:51 PM.

City Manager Tim Chapa and Community Development Director David Brletic presented on the item.

Susan Long of Self-Help Enterprises presented on the item.

The City Council by motion of Councilmember Garza, adopted Resolution No. 2022-83 to approve an amendment to the City of Sanger’s CDBG-CV Business Assistance Program Agreement (20- CDBG-CV2-3-000039) and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary HCD documents.

The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Martinez and approved by the following vote:

AYES: ONTIVEROS, MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

2. S
UBJECT: APPROVED - Initiation of Proceedings for the Annexation of Property into Community Facilities District 2005-1 Phase 1 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5826.

T
he City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-84 stating its intention to annex certain territory into City of Sanger Community Facilities District 2005-1 (public services), setting a time and date for the public hearing thereon and adopting boundary map showing territory proposed to be annexed to Community Facilities District 2005-1 (Annexation No. 3).

3. S UBJEC T: APPROVED - Initiating Proceedings Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the Annexation of Property into Sanger Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 2, Area 1.

T
he City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-85, a resolution initiating proceedings pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the annexation of property into Sanger Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 2, Area 1, to review the improvements and assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, and to set a public hearing for a future date.

10 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

City Manager Tim Chapa and City Engineer Josh Rogers presented on items J.2. and J.3.

The City Council by motion of Councilmember Montelongo approved items J.2. and J.3. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garza and approved by the following vote:

AYES: ONTIVEROS, MARTINEZ, GARZA, HURTADO, MONTELONGO
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

K. CI T

Y M ANAGER/STAFF COMMUNICATION

1. American Society of Civil Engineers Fresno Branch Project Award.

City Manager Tim Chapa presented on the item, noting that the City and staff received an award for the Academy Ave. reconstruction project. He recognized John Mulligan and Josh Rogers for their incredible job on the project.

Public Works Director John Mulligan presented on the item.

L. MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

1. Update on the Homeless Workgroup Initiative.

Chief Greg Garner presented on the item.

Jake Zalian, pastor at Set Free Church presented on the item.

Anisa Rozadilla, Sanger Unified Counselor presented on the item.

Public comment:

Osvaldo Vera said he has worked and fed the homeless and speaks to the homeless every day.

2. Councilmember Hurtado asked for consensus to expedite the work on Gary Ave. and re view other potential funding sources. Consensus was given to add the item to a future agenda.

3. Councilmember Montelongo requ ested an update on Big Mammas.

4. Councilmember Garza t hanked the City Engineer for fixing the street.

5. Mayor Pro Tem Martinez asked about the street damaged by a tract at North Avenue. City Engineer Josh Rogers said that street will be repaired with new asphalt.

6. Mayor Ontiveros asked for an update on City parks, upgrades, and snack bar.

11 City Council Minutes
October 20, 2022

M. ADJOUR NM ENT

There being no further business, the Council adjourned the regular meeting at 8:29 PM.

ATTEST:

Corina Tamez, Deputy, City Clerk
12 Prepared by: David Brletic Approved by:

REVIEW: City Manager: Finance: City Attorney:

TYPE OF ITEM: COUNCIL ACTION:  APPROVED  DENIED  NO ACTION X Consent
Informational Item
X Action Item
Department Report

Public Hearing
Matter Initiated by a Council Member
Other:

Continued to:

For the Meeting of: November 3, 2022

Agenda Item No.: E-2

CITY OF SANGER

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Brletic, Community Development Director
Subject: Second Reading
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-09, adding Section 90-994, to create an exemption to streamline the noticing requirements for future amendments when at least 300 notices would otherwise be required.

Attachments: (1) Ordinance No. 2022-09.
(2) Planning Commission Resolution 2022-06.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None known.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and approve Ordinance No. 2022-09.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 20, 2022, the Sanger City Council voted to waive the full reading, and introduced Ordinance No. 2022-09, a pproving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022-03, adding Sec. 90-994, of the Sanger Municipal Code, adding an exemption for public hearing notice requirements under certain circumstances, and a finding of exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) for the project.

Zoning Ordnance Amendment No. 2022-03 proposes to modify the text of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for alternative notification for required public hearings when mailing of notifications would exceed three hundred (300) notifications. The proposed language requires the City to provide notice by placing a notice of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation and to provide posting of notice of public hearing on the City’s website. The proposed amendment provides for requirements that provide adequate notification without extraordinary mailing requirements.

13 BACKGROUND:

The proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would impact all properties within the City of Sanger.

The Sanger Municipal Code Section 90-994 “Amendments – Purpose; initiations of amendments; notice of hearings” concerns the process by which the Zoning Ordinance is amended. This includes the requirements the City imposes on itself for the issuance of public hearing notices. The existing provisions as writ ten require the City to notice “all persons, including businesses, corporations, or other public or private entities, whose names and addresses appear on the latest equalized assessment roll as owning real property within the territory covered by such proposed change, and within 300 feet of the outer boundaries thereof”. This requirement is intended to ensure that any nearby property owners are aware of any proposed change in the zoning.

However, the provision as written requires the City to meet these noticing requirements without exemption, which is unusual, because many cities include an exemption for zoning amendments that would otherwise be required to notice an inordinate quantity of property owners. Typically, an exemption would require the City to take out an advertisement in the local newspaper broadcasting the public hearing notice for the amendment at the expense of the applicant, for any project which would otherwise be required to notice a specific number of property owners. The number of notices required to trigger the exemption is often a function of the population of the City.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been submitted by staff to amend the Zoning Ordinance Section 90-994 to streamline the noticing requirements process by adding an exemption for projects that would otherwise require three hundred (300) or more notices. This limit represents roughly 3% of households and/or businesses in Sanger, and also stands as a reasonable limit for the number of individual notices sent based on the staff time needed to generate and transmit those notices.

Changes in text are shown in bold, see below the text amendment as proposed:

“(c) Notices of hearings.

(1) For the purposes of this section, any amendment to the provisions of this chapter which i s for the purpose of changing particular property from one zoning district to another, or changing the boundary of any particular zoning district, shall be referred to as a "change of zoning district amendment," and all other amendments to the provisions of this chapter shall be referred to as a "general amendment."

(2) Notice of the time and place of any public hearing on the matter of any general amendment shall be given by the director by at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation, publi shed and circulated in the city, not less than ten calendar days prior to such hearing and by such other means as the director may deem necessary or desirable. The notice shall contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general description of the area or areas affected by the general amendment.

(3) Notices of changes of zoning district amendments.

Notice of the time and place of any public hearing on the matter of a change of zoning district amendment shall be given by the director by mailing in the United States mail a written notice thereof, not less than ten calendar days prior to such hearing, to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, whose names and addresses appear on the latest equalized assessment roll as owning real 14 property within the territory covered by such proposed change and within 300 feet of the outer boundaries thereof. If the number of properties to be noticed under this requirement exceeds three hundred (300), the City of Sanger, in lieu of a notice that is mailed or delivered as described immediately above, may provide written notice to the property owner, and (i) provide a notice by placing a display notice of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) calendar days prior to such a hearing and (ii) provide notice by posting a notice of the public hearing notice on the City’s website. The notice shall contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general description of the area affected by the change of zoning district amendment.”

A review of existing planning applications indicated that this change in noticing requirements would be relevant for the City -wise rezone project which has been undertaken to update the zoning map for consistency with the 2035 General Plan update, adopted in 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is considered exempt by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3).

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

The Zoning Ordnance Amendment provides requirements for adequate notification without extraordinary mailing requirements. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting on September 22, 2022, adopted Resolution 2022-06, recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2022- 03 to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None known.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may not adopt Ordinance No. 2022-09.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

If adopted, the proposed ordinance, it will go into effect on the 31 st day following adoption.
15 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-09

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER AMENDING SECTION 90-994 OF THE SANGER CITY CODE RELATING TO NOTICING

REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 2. Section 90-994 of the Sanger City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) Notices of hearings.
(1) For the purposes of this section, any amendment to the provisions of this chapter which is for the purpose of changing particular property from one zoning district to another, or changing the boundary of any particular zoning district, shall be referred to as a "change of zoning district amendment," and all other amendments to the provisions of this chapter shall be referr ed to as a "general amendment."
(2) Notice of the time and place of any public hearing on the matter of any general amendment shall be given by the director by at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the city, not less than ten calendar days prior to such hearing and by such other means as the director may deem necessary or desirable. The notice shall contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general description of the area or areas affected by the general amendment.
(3) Notices of changes of zoning district amendments.

Notice of the time and place of any public hearing on the matter of a change of zoning district amendment shall be given by the director by mailing in the United States mail a written notice thereof, not less than ten calendar days prior to such hearing, to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, whose names and addresses appear on the latest equalized assessment roll as owning real property within the territory covered by such proposed change and within 300 feet of the outer boundaries thereof. If the number of properties to be noticed under this requirement exceeds three hundred (300), the City of Sanger, in lieu of a notice that is mailed or delivered, shall provide written notice to the property owner, and (i) provide a notice by placing a display notice of at least one- eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) calendar days prior to such a hearing and (ii) provide notice by posting a notice of the public hearing notice on the City’s website. The notice shall contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general description of the area affected by the change of zoning district amendment.
16 SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Sanger has determined that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Sanger General Plan.

SECTION 4. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the ordinance does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably indirect physical change in the environment. Instead, the ordinance merely provides a procedural mechanism for enforcing the City’s Municipal Code and abating nuisances so as to promote public health, safety, and welfare. As such, the adoption of this ordinance is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days after its adoption.

SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk is authorized to cause this ordinance or a summary of this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Sanger, within fifteen days after its adoption. If a summary of the ordinance is published, the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance to be posted at City Hall at least five days prior to the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted and again after the meeting at which it is adopted. The ordinance shall become effective thirty days after its adoption; and

SECTION 7. Severability. Each of the provisions of this ordinance is severable from all other provisions. If any article, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

17 The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sanger held on October 20, 2022 and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on November 3, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Rebeca P. Ramirez
City Clerk
Eli Ontiveros, Mayor
City of Sanger

18 ncafi
,:,1.

SA
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF'SANGER RECOMMEI\IDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2022-03 TO TITE CITY COUNCIL OF' THE

CITY OF SANGER
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Sanger did conduct a duly noticed public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Sanger City Hall in Sanger, California, on September 22d,2022,to consider Resolution No.2022-06, to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment2022-03 to the Sanger City Council;and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the staff report prepared for the proposed ZoningOrdinance Amendment which is herein incorporated by reference; and heard public testimony offered at the hearing on the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Sanger General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the decision to amend the zoning ordinance is considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15061 (b)(3), the 'oCommon Sense" exemption; and,
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Orange Cove does hereby resolve, find, determine and order as follows:

1. The above recitations are hue and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference

2. As the decision-making body for the lead agency of the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information provided and determined that the proposed amendments do not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because they are categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15061 (bX3), the "Common Sense" exemption.

The foregoing resolution was adopted upon a motion by Commissioner Alvaro Alfaro Contreras, Commissioner Antonio Aguilar seconded the motion at a regular meeting of the Sanger Planning Commission on the 22d of September, 2022, and carried by the following vote:

CITY OF SANGER

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2022.06
Vice Chair Kevin Carter, Commissioner Ken Garcia, Commissioner Victor Echeverria, Commissioner Antonio Aguilar, Commissioner Alvaro Alfaro Contreras
Chair Drew Esquer, Commissioner KariDaniska
Dwid Brletic, Secretary
Planning Commission of the City of Sanger
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Dated: September 22nd, 2022
19 Prepared by: Becky Ramirez, City Clerk/Deputy
Personnel Officer
Approved by: ________________________

REVIEW: City Manager: ______ Finance: _______ City Attorney: ______ TYPE OF ITEM: COUNCIL ACTION:  APPROVED  DENIED  NO ACTION __X_ Consent
____ Info Item
__X_ Action Item
__ _ Department Report
____ Redevelopment Agency

____ Public Hearing
____ Matter Initiated by a Council Member
____ Other
____ Continued to: __________

For the Meeting of: November 3, 2022
Agenda Item No.: E-3

CITY OF SANGER

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

To: Mayor and Councilm embers
From: Becky Ramirez, City Clerk/Deputy Personnel Officer David Brletic, Community Development Director
Subject: Full-Time Code Enforcement Officer Position

Attachments: Resolution No. 2022-87
Code Enforcement Officer Job Description

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None known.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-87 approving a new classification and setting a salary range for a full-time Code Enforcement Officer position in the Community Development Department.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Fiscal Year 2022/2023 budget, includes funding for a new full -time Code Enforcement Officer position in the Community Development Department. The Code Enforcement Officer serves as a resource and provides information on City regulations to property owners, residents, businesses, the general public, and other City departments . The proposed salary range for this position is $2,687 to $3,266 per month.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council lists Code Enforcement as a priority in the City of Sanger FY 2022- 2023 Budget.

During City Council discussion for the proposed City of Sanger FY 2022-2023 Budget, the City Council requested staff consider conversion of an existing 6- hour Code Enforcement Officer position to a new 20 \\nas1\shared\Forms & Templates

full-time Code Enforcement Officer. The City of Sanger FY 2022- 2023 includes a full -time Code Enforcement Officer.

The Code Enforcement Officer provides information on City regulations to property owners, residents, businesses, and the public. The Code Enforcement Officer also performs a variety of technical duties in support of the City’s code enforcement program.

The full-time Code Enforcement Officer will be represented by the General Employees Organization (“GEO”). GEO membership is in agreement with the creation of the new classification and the proposed salary range.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

In accordance with the City Code, Council is required to approve the addition of new positions to the City’s classification plan and to set the salary range for the positions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2022-23 FY budget includes funding for a full-time Code Enforcement Officer.

ALTERNATIVES:

None.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

If approved, staff will conduct recruitment for the new position.

21 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-87

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER CREATING A

NEW CLASSIFICATION AND ESTABLISHING A SALARY RANGE FOR A FULL TIME

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION

WHEREAS, Section 46-2 (3) empowers the City Manager to prepare or cause to be prepared position classification plans and revisions subject to approval by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended that a new position classification be established for a full-time Code Enforcement Officer in the Community Development Department responsible to perform the duties in support of the City’s code enforcement program, as depicted in the proposed job description (“Exhibit A”); and

WHEREAS, the 2022-23 FY budget includes an allocation for a Code Enforcement Officer in the Community Development Department.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Sanger resolves as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The Code Enforcement officer job description attached as Exhibit A is approved.

3. The following salary range for the Code Enforcement Officer position is approved:

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$2,687 $2,821 $2,962 $3,111 $3,266

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The foregoing Resolution was considered by the City Council of the City of Sanger at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3
rd day of November 2022 and approved by the following
vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:

__________________________________________
Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk
22 City of Sanger October 2022

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

DEFINITION

A non- safety position. Serves as a resource and provides information on City regulations to property owners, residents, businesses, the general public, and other City departments and divisions. Under general supervision, performs a variety of technical duties in support of the City’s local code enforcement program; monitors and enforces a variety of applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations related to zoning, land use, nuisance housing, building codes, health and safety, blight, graffiti, water waste, and other matters of public concern.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES

• Perform a variety of field and office work in support of the City’s local code enforcement program; enforce compliance with City regulations and ordinances including those pertaining to zoning, land use, nuisance housing, building codes, health and safety, blight, graffiti, water waste, and other matters of public concern.
• Patrol assigned area in a City vehicle to identify and evaluate problem areas and/or ordinance violations; determine proper method to resolve violations. • Participate in the implementation of the City’s graffiti abatement program; receive requests for abatement of graffiti; patrol the City, record location of graffiti, and inform the City’s Graffiti Removal Operator of the need for vandalism clean-up.
• Prepare evidence in support of legal actions taken by the City; appear in court as necessary; testify at hearings and in court proceedings as required.
• Conduct field investigations; inspect properties for violations; attempt to make conta ct at the residence or business in order to resolve violation; issue and post warning notices, notices of violation, corrective notices, orders to comply, and related documentation for code violations; schedule and perform all follow -up functions to gain compliance including letters, inspections, calls, meetings, discussions, and negotiations to ensure compliance with appropriate codes and ordinances; issue citations and notices of violation as necessary. • Maintain accurate documentation and case files on all investigations, inspections, enforcement actions, and other job related activities including accurate and detailed information regarding code enforcement activity to substantiate violations; draw diagrams and illustrations and take photographs.
• Prepare a variety of written reports, memos, and correspondence related to enforcement activities. • Receive and respond to citizen complaints and reports from other agencies and departments on alleged violations of City zoning and related municipal codes and ordinances; interview complainant and witnesses; conduct investigations and provide recommendations for resolution. • Attend meetings and serve as a resource to other City departments, divisions, the general public, and outside agencies in the enforcement of zoning regulations; provide research and documentation for meetings; interpret and explain municipal codes and ordinances to members of the general public, contractors, business owners, and other interested groups in the field, over the counter, and on the telephone.

Code Enforcement Officer
23

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES (continued):

• Operate computer to enter, process, and acquire data relative to complaints, inspection sites, and effective code enforcement; research complaints.
• Locate vacant residences and businesses; secure buildings with proper materials as necessary; post the property as necessary; check vacant buildings regularly for transient activity, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism.
• May assist in researching, drafting, and rewriting municipal codes; participate in the development of forms and process utilized to address various issues. • Perform related duties as required.
• Coordinate efforts with Police, Planning, Building and related departments, legal representatives, and other staff or agencies as needed.
• Educate commerc ial/residential communities regarding municipal code, ordinances and community standards.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS

The following generally describes the knowledge and ability required to enter the job and/or be learned within a short period of time in order to successfully perform the assigned duties.

Knowledge of:
• Operations, services, and activities of a municipal code compliance program. • Pertinent codes, ordinances, laws, and regulations pertaining to zoning, nuisance abatement, property maintenance, building, health and safety, and related areas. • Procedures involved in the enforcement of codes and regulations including methods and techniques of conducting and documenting field investigations.
• City services and organizational structure as they relate to code compliance. • Effective public relations practices.
• Principles and procedures of record keeping.
• Methods and techniques of business correspondence and technical report preparation. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications.
• Occupational hazards and standard safety practices.
• Geographic features and locations within the local area.

Ability to:

• Independently perform a full range of municipal code enforcement and compliance duties. • Interpret and apply applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations related to zoning, nuisance abatement, and health and safety issues.
• Inspect and identify violations of applicable codes and ordinances. • Enforce pertinent codes, ordinances, laws, and regulations with impartiality and efficiency. • Respond to inquiries, complaints, and requests for service in a fair, tactful, and firm manner. • Investigate complaints and mediate resolutions in a timely and tactful manner.

Code Enforcement Officer
24

Ability to (continued):

• Prepare accurate and detailed documentation of investigation findings. • Maintain logs, records, and files.
• Research, compile, and collect data
• Prepare clear and concise technical reports.
• Understand and follow oral and written instructions.
• Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. • Meet and maintain standards of adequate physical endurance and agility.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Education & Experience

Any combination of education and experience that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:

• Equivalent to completion of the twelfth grade supplemented by specialized training and/or college level coursework in criminal justice, public administration, business administration, or other related field.
• One year of work experience involving a high level of public contact including some experience dealing with the public in an enforcement, inspection, investigation, or customer service capacity.

Experience that includes the enforcement of municipal codes is highly desirable.

License

• Possession of a valid California driver’s license issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles and a responsible driving record.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS & WORKING ENVIRONMENT

• Sufficient physical ability and mobility to work in an office and field environment; to stand, stoop, reach, bend, kneel, squat, climb ladders; to lift and/or carry light weights. • Indoor and outdoor environment; travel from site to site; incumbents may be exposed to noise, dust, inclement weather conditions, and potentially hostile environments. • Work variable hours, weekdays, and weekends and/or holidays as necessary.

PROPOSED SALARY RANGE:

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $ 2,687 $ 2,821 $2,962 $3,111 $3,266

25 Prepared by: Esperanza Rosales____ Approved by: ________________________ REVIEW: City Manager: ______ Finance: _______ City Attorney: ______ TYPE OF ITEM: COUNCIL ACTION:  APPROVED  DENIED  NO
ACTION
_X__ Consent
____ Info Item
_X__ Action Item
____ Department Report
____ Redevelopment Agency
____ Public Hearing
____ Matter Initiated by a Council Member
____ Other
____ Continued to: __________
For the Meeting of: November 3, 2022
Ag enda Item No.: E-4

CITY OF SANGER

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
To:

Mayor and City Council
From: Esperanza Rosales, Management Analyst
Subject: Technical Correction to Resolutions for New Water Well Funding Application Attachments: 1) Resolution Rescinding Resolutions 2022-79 and 2022-80 2) New Authorizing Resolution
3) New Reimbursement Resolution
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None known.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022- 88 rescinding Authorizing Resolution No. 2022-79 and Reimbursement Resolution No. 2022-80;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-89, authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit a Financial Assistance Application to the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the City of Sanger New Water Well Project (Authorizing Resolution);

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022–90, designating the amount of project expenditures to be reimbursed by the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of the City of Sanger New Water Well Project (Reimbursement Resolution).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Staff is pursuing a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to qualify for the Incentive Program for consolidation of a 26 disadvantaged water system (Tombstone). These resolutions were previously approved by the City Council on October 6, 2022, and are brought back due to technical corrections necessary to the resolutions.

B

ACKGROUND
On October 6, 2022, the City Council approved Authorizing Resolution 2022-79, which authorized the City Manager or his designee to apply for a DWSRF loan for construction of the Well #19 project. The resolution also authorize d the City Manager to execute financial assistance agreements and any amendments with the SWRCB. Also approved, was Reimbursement Resolution 2022- 80, which designated a maximum of $3.8 million dollars in funding for expenditures for the Well #19 project.

The approved resolution s w ere forwarded to Self Help Enterprises, the City’s Technical Assistance Contractor, who is working with City Staff to develop and finalize the DWSRF funding application for the project. Upon further review of the resolutions , Self Help Enterprises notified the City that the SWRCB’s, Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) is requesting the following technical corrections to the Authorizing Resolution:

1. Change the Project Title in the Authorizing Resolution to match the Project Title on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document.

2. To utilize the Authorizing Resolution template provided in the funding application.

Additionally, inflation and contingency cost s were part of recent discussions between City Staff and DFA State Representatives . The initial Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the project was put together in 2019. Since then, some costs have been volatile and have fluctuated. The engineer estimates the project to cost only $3.8 million dollars, but it is possible that it could inflate beyond that. City Staff and State Representatives agree that increasing the maximum allowable financing for this project is warranted to provide flexibilit y in the case that inflation and costs do surpass the Engineer ’s initial estimate.

Therefore, a revision to the approved Reimbursement Resolution 2022- 80 is necessary . C ity Staff is proposing the following revision to the Reimbursement Resolution:

1. To increase the maximum allowable financing from $3,800,000 to $4,850,000.

2. To utilize the Reimbursement Resolution template provided in the funding application.

Financial assistance agreements do not obligate the City to borrow funding. If the City desires to borrow funds in addition to any incentive grant funding, the terms of the loan will be brought back to the City Council before executing.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The technical corrections and revisions to the Authorizing and Reimbursement Resolutions are necessary to submit the general package funding application for Well #19 to qualify for the Incentive Program for consolidation of a disadvantaged water system (Tombstone).

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of these resolutions. Applying for funding does not obligate the City to borrow the financing amount. The resource impact of proceeding with the project will be evaluated when staff brings the construction contracts to the City Council.

27 ALTERNATIVES
None recommended.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The approved resolution will be submitted with the general package funding application. 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-88

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER
RESCINDING AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -79 AND
REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-80 RELATING TO THE

NEW WATER WELL PROJECT

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022 -79 authorizing a funding application for a new water well from State Water Resources Control Board (Authorizing Resolution); and

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022 -80 designating the amount of project expenditures to be reimbursed by the State Water Resources Control Board for the design and construction of Well 19 (Reimbursement Resolution); and

WHEREAS, Self Help Enterprises, the City’s Technical Assistance Contract or, notified the City that the SWRCB’s Division of Financial Assistance is requesting technical corrections to the Authorizing Resolution and the Reimbursement Resolution; and

WHEREAS, there is a need to adopt a new Authorizing Resolution and Reimburseme nt Resolution by separate action and rescind the incorrect resolutions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council rescinds Resolution Nos. 2022-79 and 2022-80.

Section 3. The City Council by separate action will adopt new Authorizing and Reimbursement Resolutions.

Section 4. This resolution is effective upon adoption.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution was considered by the City Council of the City of Sanger at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3
rd day of November 2022 and adopted by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk
29 AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO: 2022-89
WHEREAS _____________________________________________________________________________ (insert appropriate findings)
RESOLVED BY THE _______________________________________________________________OF THE (insert name of Governing Board of the Entity)
________________________________________________________________ (the “Entity”), AS FOLLOWS:
(insert Entity name)
The ____________________________________________ (the “Authorized Representative”) or designee is (insert Title of Authorized Representative)
hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Entity, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of ___________________________________________________________ (the “Project”). (insert Project Name)
This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.

The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the Entity in carrying out the Entity’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the Entity and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

CERTIFICATION
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the ___________________________________________________________ held on ______________________.
__________________________
Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk
SEAL
30 REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION
Resolution No. 2022-90
WHEREAS, the __________________________________ (the "Agency") desires to finance the costs of (Agency Name)
constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water system, including certain treatment facilities, pipelines and other infrastructure (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"), and WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Agency hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds.

SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is $_____________.

SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the Agency will expend moneys for the construction portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds.

SECTION 4. Each Agency expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a capit al account under general federal income ta
x principles.

SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this Agency is not aware of the previous adoption of off icial intents by the Agency that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax- exempt obligations h
ave not been issued.

SECT
ION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the Agency in order to comply with Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs.

SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this Agency so finds, determines and represents.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATION
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the _____________________________________________ held on __________________. ____________________________
Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk
SEAL
31 Prepared by: _John Mulligan _ Approved by: _______________________ REVIEW: City Manager: ______ Finance: _______ City Attorney: ______ TYPE OF ITEM: COUNCIL ACTION:  APPROVED  DENIED  NO ACTION __X_ Consent
____ Info Item
__X_ Action Item
____ Department Report
____ Redevelopment Agency
____ Public Hearing
____ Matter Initiated by a Council Member
____ Other
____ Continued to: __________
For the Meeting of: November 3, 2022
Ag enda Item No.: E-5

CITY OF SANGER

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
From: John Mulligan, Public Works Director
Subject: Emergency Removal and Installation of a Traffic Signal Pole – Academy Avenue and North Avenue – Additional Purchasing Authority Atta
chments: 1) Proposal, Confirmation, and Contract – A-C E lectric Company. 2) Emergency Purchase Declaration
3) Resolution No. 2022-91
CONF
LICT OF INTEREST:

None
known.

RECO
MMENDATION:

Sta
ff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-91 reviewing the emergency action taken by the City Manager to approve the proposal from A-C Electric Company to repair the damaged traffic signal located at the intersection of Academy and North Avenues in the amount of $52,475.00; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to sign the documents on behalf of the City. 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff requests that the City Council ratify the emergency action to approve the proposal from A -C Electric Company to repair the damaged traffic signal located at North Avenue and Academy Avenue.

The proposal in the amount of $52,475 is for the removal of the foundation and pole and replacing both the foundation and pole along with all the required electrical work.

On October 16, 2022 a traffic accident occurred at the intersection of Academy and North Avenues. The automobile ran into the traffic signal causing damage to the pole and the supporting foundation. The City obtained a quote from A-C Electric who installed the pole originally. The City of Sanger currently contracts traffic signal maintenance with the City of Fresno and they will be supplying a new replacement pole. The pole will be billed separately on the quarterly invoice along with any maintenance.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Sanger has multiple intersections with traffic signals. On October 16, 2022 there was a traffic accident at the intersection of Academy and North Avenues. The vehicle severely damaged one of the traffic signal poles and the foundation. The pole and foundation will need to be replaced for safety related reasons. A-C Electric Company installed the traffic signal during the Academy Avenue widening and reconstruction project. The City utilizes A-C Electric for many of the traffic repairs and replacements. The City of Sanger is also under contract with the City of Fresno to perform the regular maintenance on the signals and controllers. The City of Fresno will be providing the new pole for A-C Electric to install.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

The traffic signal pole and foundation are damaged beyond repair and need to be replaced. A-C Electric Company installed the existing pole during the Academy Avenue reconstruction and widening project. Due to safety concerns, the signal needs to be repaired immediately.

The required emergency repair of the damaged traffic signal has been declared an emergency action based upon the specific facts above. Section 2-214(d) of the City’s Municipal Code allows the City Manager the authority to determine that the emergency exists in writing which was done October 26, 2022. T he purchasing agent may now make or authorize others to make emergency purchases and contracts for supplies, materials, equipment and services without competitive bidding when the purchase or contract for the item is immediately necessary for the continued operation of a department, for the preservation of life and property, when the purchase is required for health, safety or welfare of the public, or for the protection of property; provided, however, that there is a present, immediate and existing emergency; and that such emergency procurements shall be made with such solicitation of competitive pricing as practicable under the circumstances.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of the purchase is $52,475.00 which will be funded from the Public Works Streets budget. There are available funds in 101-070-301-6290 of the FY 22/23 budget. Staff will submit the claim for insurance or small claims reimbursement as appropriate.

33 ALTERNATIVES:

No recommended alternatives.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Contractor will remove the existing traffic signal pole and foundation and replace the pole and foundation.

The pole will be purchased from the City of Fresno.

34 ATTACHMENT 1

35 n-e thrhicemTenny * CALTFORN|A C-10 LTCENSE 99849
E NGlNEERING_CONSTRUCTION-TEC H NOLOGY*SERVICE
Fresno Division
2560 S East Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
PROPOSAL. CONFIRMATION . CONTRACT
1012512022
City of Sanger City Hall
1 700 7th Street
Sanger, CA 93557
Attention:

SUBJECT: City of Sanger - North & Academy Signal Pole
A-C Electric Company is pleased to provide the following proposal SCOPE OF WORK:

1. Furnish traffic control necessary to complete all work listed below.

2. Fu rnish cra ne & bucket truck to assist with disconnecting & remova I of existing mast a rm and damaged pole from foundation.

3. Demo approx. 10'x10' sidewalk.

4. Furnish dump truck to haul off concrete and spoils for disposal.

5. Furnish pothole machine to open area around damaged concrete foundation in preparation for removal of foundation.

5. Furnish crane to lift damaged foundation and haul offfor disposal.

7. Furnish concrete slurry to fill location of removed pole foundation.

8. Furnish Bobcat w/ auger to drill hole for new foundation.

9. Furnish 30"x8' rebar cage, (4) 1 3/4" x42"x6" anchor bolts and concrete for new pole foundation.

10. FurnishtruckandpoledollytopickupnewpolefromtheCityofFresnoyardanddelivertoAcademy&North

11. Furnishcrane&buckettrucktosetownerfurnishedpoleandmastarmontonewfoundation.

12. Make all terminations and check for proper operation.

CLARIFICATIONS:
1 . This proposal is subject to the attached A-C Electric Company Standard Terms & Conditions.

2. City of Fresno to put intersection in "Flash" and turn back on once complete.

3. Replacement 24-4-113 pole furnished by others.

4. Removal and replacement of cameras by others.
1of4
36 A-C Electric Company
City of Sanger City Hall
City of Sanger - North & Academy Signal Pole
EXCLUSIONS:
1 . Overtime & shift work. This proposal is based on all work being performed from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday - Friday.

2. All permits and fees.

3. All Utility Company fees.

4. Furnishing of replacement24-4-11 3 signal pole.

5. Camera work.

6. Any PE stamped permit drawings.

7. Bond - our bond rate is 0.8'l 0%o

8. Liquidated damages due to events not under our control.

9. Temporary power and lighting.

10. All painting and patching.
1 1 . Structural backing within walls and ceiling for electrical equipment. 1 2. Plywood backboards.

13. Tro.ubleshooting andlor repairing existing electrical equipment, devices, and circuitry. 2of4
37 A-C Electric Company
City of Sanger City Hall
City of Sanger - North & Academy Signal Pole

PRICING INFORMATION
Total Lump Sum Price $52,475.O0
PAYMENT TERMS: Monthly Progress Payments, Net-30
Acceptance may be made by signing and returning one copy of this proposal letter or forwarding an acceptable form of your purchase order or subcontract document by Nov 24,2022.

Thank you for allowing A-C Electric Company the opportunity to provide you with this proposal. lf you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at .

OFFERED BY:

A-C Electric Company
,{&%:t*4/rttt
ACCEPTED BY:

City of Sanger City Hall
SIGNED
jeff Waughtal, Estimator
SIGNED

NAME, TITLE
't0t25t2022

NAME, TITLE

DATE DATE
3of4
38 A-C Electric Company
City of Sanger City Hall
City of Sanger - North & Academy Signal Pole

STANDARD TERMS & CONDITIONS
WARRANTY:

All equipment and instrumentation supplied by A-C Electric Company is limited to the manufacturer's warranty and
workmanship is warranted for 1 year(s) from the date of installation. Warranty does not extend to preexisting
conditions, damage or wear caused by misuse, negligence, accident, corrosion, modification by Client, loss of product, or tampering in any manner.
ln no event shall A-C Electric Company be responsible for consequential or special damages which may arise in
connection with such equipment, parts or programming.

The foregoing warranty terms are expressly made in lieu of any and all other warranties, expressed or implied,
including warranties of merchantability and of fitness for any purpose.

ALTERNATE CONTRACT LANGUAGE:

Should Client choose to accept this proposal by providing a purchase order or alternate contract document, this proposal is conditioned on such document being mutually acceptable to both parties.

Some clauses of importance to us are realistic payment
clauses which protect both parties, guarantee us that we get paid promptly for our work and eliminate unnecessary
paperwork; indemnification clauses which equitably allocate risk to the parties, insuring that you are indemnified for the negligent acts of A-C Electric Company, without A-C Electric Company indemnifying or defending you for your negligence; scheduling clauses which give us adequate time to perform our work efficiently and safely, compensate us for
acceleration required for reasons outside our control, and limits any requirement for us to accelerate without
compensation to our failure to perform in meeting a
reasonable schedule.
ln the event that we are unable to reach a mutually
acceptable contract utilizing Contractor's proposed
document, this proposal is conditioned on the use of
Consensus DOCS 750 or 751, documents drafted and agreed to by the various construction trade associations with the intent to be fair to the contractor, subcontractor and owner.

As an interim measure, while we are working on a mutually acceptable contract document, we will perform work and
supply material upon receipt of a written authorization to do so with the assurances that we will be paid timely for the work done.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:

A-C Electric Company shall retain all right, title and interest in all lntellectual Property (as defined herein) used, made or arising in connection with the Contract or otherwise provided or communicated to Client by or on behalf of A-C Electric Company. Without limiting the foregoing, Client shall not use any drawings or specifications prepared by A-C Electric Company, except for the purpose of confirming the quality of design and manufacturing of the products set forth in the attached proposah and Client shall not photocopy, duplicate or in any way reproduce in whole or in part any drawings, specifications, or software which may be supplied by A-C Electric Company; provided, however, that the Client may make copies of and use such software for Client's internal purposes only, and not for rendering services or selling products to third persons. The Client shall not sell, license, sublicense, assign or otherwise transfer the lntellectual Property or any interest therein to anyone. As used herein, "lntellectual Property" means and includes any and all
softwa re, specifications, designs, processes, tech niques, concepts, improvements, discoveries, ideas, and inventions, whether or not patentable, and all patents, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights therein or related thereto.

Title to any application software provided to Client by A-C Electric Company under the Contract remains with A-C
Electric Company, and Client is subject to any third party licenses. A-C Electric Company grants to the Client a
personal, paid-up, perpetual, nonexclusive, non-assignable and non-transferable license, without right of sub-license, to use said application software in the application for which the software was designed in conjunction with the specified equipment.
4of4
39 ATTACHMENT 2

40 MEMORANDUM

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
JOHN F. MULLIGAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Date: October 26, 2022

To: Tim Chapa, City Manager

From: John Mulligan, Public Works Director

Subject: Emergency Purchase Declaration: Traffic Signal Installation – North and Academy Avenues

The City currently operates a number of traffic signals within the City limits. On October 16, 2022 the traffic signal on the north east corner of North Avenue and Academy Avenue was hit by a vehicle resulting in a severely damaged traffic signal pole and the underlying foundation. Both the pole and foundation will need to be replaced. Staff was able to obtain a proposal from A-C Electric Company in the amount of $52,475.00 to perform the pole and foundation installation. A-C Electric Company was the contractor that recently installed this traffic signal. The pole will be purchased from the City of Fresno and billed on the quarterly maintenance invoice. The City of Fresno maintains the traffic signals in Sanger under a separate contract. Due to safety concerns, this work needs to be completed in a timely manner.

I am asking for you to determine that the required purchase and services be considered an emergency which will allow for staff to quickly address the emergency purchase without obtaining three quotes. The funding is available within the Public Works Street Fund. This authority is granted to the City Manager per Section 2- 214(d) of the Sanger Municipal Code. I have attached the section for your reference.

Please let me know if I can provide any further clarification or information regarding this issue.

By signing this document, you are formally determining that an emergency exists based upon the specific facts listed above. This will allow for the purchasing agent to allow for emergency purchases and services without obtaining at least three quotes per Sec. 2-214(d) of the Sanger Municipal Code.

__________________________________ __________________ Tim Chapa, City Manager Date

41 ATTACHMENT 3

42 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-91

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF SANGER REVIEWING THE

EMERGENCY ACTION TAKEN BY CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AN EMERGENCY

PROPOSAL TO REPAIR A DAMAGED TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND APPROVING THE AW

ARD OF EMERGENCY PURCHASE WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE

EMERGENCY REPAIR OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WHEREAS, the City Council has pursuant to Sanger City Code Section 2-214 delegated its authority to the City Manager to order emergency work and proceed without plans, specifications or notice for bids to award contracts governing the purchase of supplies, equipment, and contractual services.

WHEREAS, Sanger City Code Section 2- 214 provides: “ The determination that an emergency exists shall be made by the City Manager in writing, setting forth the specific facts establishing the emergency.”
WHEREAS, staff was n ot ified that a traffic accident occurred on October 16, 2022 that damaged a traffic signal located on the corner of Academy and North Avenues.

WHEREAS, it was det ermined by staff that the pole will need to be replaced a nd a new foundation be installed.

WHEREAS, the City has a cont ract with the City of Fresno to maintain traffic signals and controllers located in Sanger.

WHEREAS, the City will purchase the new signal pole from the City of Fresno utilizing the current contract.

WHEREAS, staff was able to obtain a proposal from A-C Electric Company who originally installed the existing damaged traffic signal.

WH
EREAS, the repairs necessary are described as follows : remove and dispose of the existing pole and foundation, install the new foundation and pole, i nstall concrete, electrical work, and haul all of the old materials away for disposal.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Sanger City Code Section 2-214, the City Manager has pr
ovided a detailed staff report setting forth the specific facts establishing the emergency, w hy the emergency did not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids , and why his actions were necessary to respond to the emergency associated with the aforementioned repairs as well as on the costs associated with the repairs; and
WHEREAS, failure to immediately make the required repairs may result in da nger to the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents and/or public facilities.

43

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the written report and verbal report of the City Manager at a regular meeting and determined that the facts and circumstances are such that emergency repairs were and are needed.

NOW, THEREFORE the City Council resolves as follows:

Section 1. The recitals herein are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The City Council ratifies the emergency action taken by the City Manager including the award of emergency contract (s) without competitive bidding for the emergency repairs.

Section 3. Upon completion of the aforementioned purchase, any other purchases shall be made through a competitive bid process as required by the Sanger City Code and Public Contract Code.

Section 4. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to make status reports at each regularly scheduled Council meeting, pursuant to Section 22050 of the Public Contracts Code until the repairs have been completed.

Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

CERTIFICATION

The foregoing Resolution was considered by the City Council of the City of Sanger at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3
rd day of November and approved by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Rebeca P. Ramirez, City Clerk
44 Prepared by: Joshua Rogers____ Approved by: ________________________ REVIEW: City Manager: ______ Finance: _______ City Attorney: ______ TYPE OF ITEM: COUNCIL ACTION:  APPROVED  DENIED  NO ACTION ____ Consent
____ I nfo Item
_X__ Action Item
____ Department Report
____ Redevelopment Agency
_X__ Public Hearing
____ Matter Initiated by a Council Member
____ Other
____ Continued to: __________
For the Meeting of: November 3, 2022
Agenda Item No.: F-1

CITY OF SANGER

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Joshua Rogers, City Engineer
Subject: Public Hearing for Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration for New City of Sanger Water Well
Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2022-92

2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None known.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing. Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022-92, adopting the Mi tigated Negative Declaration for the City of Sanger New Water Well Project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The proposed project would develop a new water well. The City is evaluating two potential well sites, although only one well will ultimately be constr ucted. The well location will be finalized pending t est well results. The proposed new water well will be installed either on a 0.2-acre site west of Greenwood Avenue and south of North Avenue (which is the preferred site known as Well 19), or on a 2-acre site west of S. Academy Avenue between the E. Butler Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (known as Well 28). An Initial Study and M itiga ted Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated to r
esponsible and interested agencies f or the mandated review period. The attached resolution is required to satisfy the envi r onmental review requirement s for the project and allow the State Wate r Board to complete the review of the funding application submitted by the City for the project. 45 \\nas1\shared\Forms & Templates

BACKGROUND:

As has been discussed at several City Council meetings, the City has submitted a funding application to the State Water R esources Control Board ( “Water Board”) to secure funding for a new water well.

The application is being processed as an I ncentive Project for the consolidation of the Tombstone Territory.

The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a new municipal water well. As described in the Executive Summary, the City is evaluating two potential sites for the new well, although only one well will ultimately be constructed. Project construction and operation would be similar at either site. The proposed Project cons ists of construction and operation of a new municipal water well, which would occur in three phases. The first phase would be the construction of a test well to determine the potential capacity of the well and to test for water quality of the aquifer. If t he capacity of the well and the water quality meet Health Department standards, then the second phase for Drilling and Developing the well would occur. This phase would drill the well hole and install blank and louvered casing to the nece ssary depths for the well. The third and last phase would be the Pump and Motor phase. This would include the installation of a pump , drive motor, discharge line, sand separator (if applicable), emergency generator, site lighting, GAC fi ltration treatment (if necessary), electrical equipment and other site improvements.

The new well will help provide water supply and pressure requirements for the area. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed this new well will produce approximately 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm).

Based upon the 5- year average maximum day demand (MDD) factor of 0.97 gpm per service connection, this well could serve approximately 1,200 single family residential homes.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ( “DWSRF”) funding application was submitted in June of this year, and during tha t time the required environmental studies were stil l in progress. Sinc e that time, an Initial S tudy/Mitigated Ne gative De claration (“IS/MND”) has been prepared by the environmental consultant, Crawf ord & Bowen Planning, I nc., in order to satisfy the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The Project CEQA document analyzed all environmental topics from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist. The Pr oject CEQA document will require a public hearing (which is taking place tonight) and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was noticed in the Mid Valley Times and circulated to the State Clearinghouse and other interested local agencies. The required 30- day review period was from September 29, 2022 – October 31, 2022. No public comments have been received.

Once the public hearing occurs and the MND is adopted, the City’s consultants will file a Notice of Determination with the Fresno County Clerk’s office, which will be the final step in the CEQA process.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:

Adoption of the Mitigated N egative Declaration is necessary to satisfy CEQA and to conform to the DWSRF funding requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal im pact from approval of the resolution. The total project cost was originally estimated at just over $4 million, with $3.8 million being sought for funding from the DWSRF program, which is assumed to consist of a combination of grant and 0% loan funds. In recent discussions with the Water Board Division of Financial Assistance, Staff has increased the estimated construction contingency 46 \\nas1\shared\Forms & Templates

from 10% to 15% and has a dded 5% annual inflation from the initial cost estimates through the yea r 2024. This results in a current total estimate of $4.85 million to be included in the DWSRF Reimbursement Resolution to set the cap on a DWSRF loan. T he City will only incur loan debt as it incurs actual expenses, so it is Staff’s hope that these numbers are conservative as a factor of safety. Any costs above and beyond the DWSRF funding would be planned to be appropriated from ARPA balance.

ALTERNATIVES:

None recommended.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

City staff will forward the IS/MND, adoption resolution, Notice of Determination and proof of filing with the State Clearinghouse to the Water Board for their use in continuing their review of the project funding application.
47 \\nas1\shared\Forms & Templates

ATTACHMENT 1
48 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-92

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANGER TO ADOPT A M

ITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC LARATION FOR THE NEW CITY OF SANGER WATER WELL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sanger (the “City Council” and “City”, respectively) has received and reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with appendices, and supporting i
nformation sources (collectively, the “draft MND”), together with the staff report and any c
omments received and responded to during the public review and hearing process (collectively, the “Environmental Record”) for the proposed construction and operation of the Ci ty of Sanger New Water Well Project (the “Project”), as des cri bed in the draft MND; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for purposes of environmental review of the P
roject under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the State “Guidelines for I mpl ementation of the California Environmental Quality Act”; and
WHEREAS, the Project could, without mitigation, have resulted in a potential impact to certain areas of environmental concern, including Biological Resources and Cultural Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has pre pared mitiga tion mea sures to address and mitiga te a ll potential environmental impacts to a “less than sig nificant” le vel, which is a part of the Environmental Record reviewed and considered by the City; and WHEREAS, the City has incorporated the mitigation measures described in the initial study for the Project (“Initial Study”) as conditions of approval by the City; and WHEREAS, with the exception of the potential impacts stated above, there are no other potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the Pr oject; and WHEREAS, the City subm itted a N otice of Intent to Adopt a M itigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse and distributed it to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Pr oject; placed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration concerning the Project in The Mid Va lley T ime s for publication; and mailed the Not ice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Ne gative D eclaration to othe r interested pa rties; and
WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with appendices and supporting information sources were duly noticed for public review and comment from S
eptember 29, 2022 to October 31, 2022, as provided by law; and WHEREAS, a hearing concerning the City’s intent to adopt a final MND and MMRP was duly noticed and held on November 3, 2020, at which time any interested parties were 49 afforded an opportunity to be heard in addition to the public review and comment period referenced above as part of the Environmental Record; and; and

WHEREAS, the City has considered, prior to adoption of the final MND, the Environmental Record in support of the final MND.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sanger, State of California, finds, determines and resolves as follows:

1. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as true and correct.

2. The City Council finds that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judg ment of the City as the lead agency for the Project.

3. The City Council finds that it has independently reviewed and considered the Environmental Record, including the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, as a final Mitigated Negat ive Declaration, prior to adopting the final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

4. On the basis of the Environmental Record as the whole record before the City Council, including the Initial Study and any comments received, the City Council finds, in its in dependent judgment and analysis, that there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

5. The City Council confirms that the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, have been incorporated into the Project and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the final Mitigated Negative Declaration, which documents are a part of the Environmental Record before the City Council for the Project.

6. The City Council approves and adopts the findings set forth herein, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the Environmental Record.

7. City staff is authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Determination concerning the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project to be filed in the office of the Fresno County Clerk and with the Office of Planning and Research in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

50 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council for the City of Sanger, California, at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN (RECUSAL): COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

__________________________________________
Rebeca Ramirez, City Clerk
51 \\nas1\shared\Forms & Templates

ATTACHMENT 2

52 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Sanger New Water Well

Prepared for:

City of Sanger
1700 7th Street
Sanger, CA 93618
(559) 876-6300
Contact: David Brletic, Senior Planner

Prepared by:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP

September 2022
53 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 4 Project Title ................................................................................................................. 4 Lead agency name and address............................................................................... 4 Contact person and phone number ........................................................................ 4 Project location ........................................................................................................... 4 Project sponsor’s name/address .............................................................................. 8 General plan designation ......................................................................................... 8 Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 8 Project Description .................................................................................................... 8 Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions ....................................................... 8 Other Public Agencies Involved .............................................................................. 9 Tribal Consultation .................................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .............................. 9 DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................ 12 I. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................ 12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................... 16 III. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 18 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 24 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................ 28 VI. ENERGY ............................................................................................................ 31 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................. 36 54 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................... 41 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................ 43 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 57 XIII. NOISE ............................................................................................................... 58 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................. 62 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................... 64 XVI. RECREATION ................................................................................................. 66 XVII. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................... 67 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................... 69 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................... 71 XX. WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................... 74 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................... 76 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 78 Persons and Agencies Consulted .......................................................................... 78

Appendices
Appendix A - Biological Resource Evaluation
Appendix B - Cultural: Phase I Survey / Class III Inventory Report 55 PROJECT INFORMATION
This document is the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the potential environmental effects of the City of Sanger’s (City) new Water Well Project (Project). The City of Sanger will act as the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of all materials referenced in this report are available for review in the Project file during regular business hours at 1700 7th Street, Sanger, CA 93657.

Project Title
City of Sanger New Water Well Project

Lead agency name and address
City of Sanger
1700 7th Street
Sanger, CA 93657

Contact person and phone number
David Brletic, Senior Planner: 559.876.6300

Project location
The proposed Project is located in Sanger, California in Fresno County (see Figure 1). The City is evaluating two potential sites for the proposed new water well, although only one well w ill be ultimately constructed. The well site will be finalized pending pilot hole testing at the sites. The proposed new water well will be installed either on a 0.2-acre site west of Greenwood Avenue and south of North Avenue, which is the City’s pr eferred site (See Figure 2), or on a 2-acre site west of S. Academy Avenue between the E. Butler Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (See Figure 3). This CEQA document evaluates both sites.
56 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5
Figure 1 – Regional Location Map

57 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 6
Figure 2 – Location of the Preferred Well Site

58 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 7
Figure 3 – Location of the Alternate Well Site

59 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 8
Project sponsor’s name/address
City of Sanger
1700 7th Street
Sanger, CA 93657

General plan designation
Preferred Site: Residential
Alternate Site: Commercial-Office

Zoning
Preferred Site: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Alternate Site: C-4 (General Commercial)

Project Description
As described earlier, the City is evaluating two potential well sites, although only one well will ultimately be constructed. The construction and operation of the new well would be similar at either site. The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a new municipal w ater well, which would occur in three phases. The first phase would be the construction of a test well to determine the potential capacity of the well and to test for water quality of the aquifer. If the capacity of the well and the water quality meet Health Department standards, then the second phase for Drilling and Developing the well would occur. This phase would drill the well hole and install blank and louvered casing to the necessary depths for the well. The third and last phase would be the pump and motor phase. This would include the installation of a drive motor, discharge line, sand separator, emergency generator, site lighting, electrical equipment and other site improvements. The new well will help provide water supply and pressure requirements for the area.

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed this new well will produce approximately 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm). Based upon the 5 - year average maximum day demand ( MDD) factor of 0.97 gpm per service connection, this well could serve approximately 1,200 single family residential homes.

Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions
Lands directly surrounding the preferred site are described as follows:
• North: North Avenue, residential subdivision.
• South: Agricultural land.
60 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 9
• East: Greenwood Avenue, residential subdivision.
• West: Residential subdivision.

Lands directly surrounding the alternate site are described as follows:
• North: Agricultural land.
• South: Residential parcel.
• East: S. Academy Avenue, commercial establishments.
• West: Agricultural land.

Other Public Agencies Involved
• California State Water Board
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Occupation Safety & Health Administration

Tribal Consultation
See Section XVIII – Tribal Cultural Resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

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

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources
and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
61 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 10
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance

62 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 11

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date
63 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 12

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is located in the Central San Joaquin Valley region, in the central portion of Fresno County, in the City of Sanger, California. Th e preferred site resides in an area that is being developed with single family residential housing. Surrounding areas are comprised of agricultural land uses to the south and the west , with fields and orchards dominating the visual landscape. Residential subdivisions lie to the north and east of the site. This site is generally flat and bounded to the north by North Avenue and the east by Greenwood Avenue. The alternate site is located on the west side of Academy Avenue and is within an ar ea dominated by agricultural uses (currently planted with citrus 64 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 13
trees). A residential parcel is immediately south of this alternate site.

RESPONSES
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resource in the proposed Project area. Views of these distant mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of the nature of the Project, distance and limi ted visibility of these features. Neither the City of Sanger nor the County of Fresno identify views of these features as required to be “protected.” The nearest eligible scenic highway is a section of SR 180 which is located over 6 miles northeast from either potential well site. However, the Project is not visible to or from this eligible scenic highway due to intervening land uses.

Therefore, the Project has less than significant impact on scenic vistas or designated scenic resources or highways.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves installation of a new municipal water well in the City of Sanger. The proposed Project would result in minor alteration of the existing visual character of public views of the site with the addition of minimal structures. Due to nature of the Project, most of components are located underground and will not be visible from the adjacent roadsides. A block wall will be installed at the property line to reduce noise generated by well site activities. Above-ground structures will consist of the wellhead, pump, and related appurtenances , and the abov e ground hydrants that will be installed as part of the Project. Once constructed, the Project will not result in a 65 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 14
substantial change to the existing visual nature. The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of City public facility areas and are generally expected from residents of the City.

Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the area.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare and waste energy, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive. Light that falls beyond the intended area is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare.

Minimizing all these forms of obtrusive light is an important environmental consideration. A less obtrusive and well-designed energy efficient fixture would face downward, emit the correct intensity of light for the use, and incorporate energy timers.

Spillover light is light emitted by a lighting installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Spillover light can adversely affect light -sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods at nighttime. Because light dissipates as it travels from the source, the intensity of a light fixture is often increased at the source to compensate for the dissipated light. This can further increase the amount of light that illuminates adjacent uses. Spillover light can be minimized by using only the level of light necessary, and by using cutoff type fixtures or shielded light fixtures, or a combination of fixture types.

Glare results when a light source directly in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfort ably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. The presence of a bright light in an otherwise dark setting may be distracting or annoying, referred to as discomfort glare, or it may diminish the ability to see other objects in the darkened environment, referred to as disability glare.

Glare can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angle s, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles.

Current sources of light in the Project area include streetlights, vehicles traveling along surrounding roadways and residential lighting in the area. The Project may implement minimal amounts of security 66 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 15
lighting. Such lighting would be shielded so as not to spill onto adjacent properties and would be subject to City standards. Accordingly, potential impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

67 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 16
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monit oring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Sanger is located in Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The preferred site is current vacant with minimal vegetation and is within a developing residential subdivision. The site is surrounded by residential development to the north and east, and agricultural uses to the south and 68 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 17
west. The alternate site is located on agricultura l farmland but is within the City’s North Academy Corridor Master Plan area. The site has General Plan and Zoning designations for Commercial/Office uses.

RESPONSES
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project consists of installing a water well and the temporary activities associated with drilling and water testing. Both potential well sites are on lands that are not designated for agricultural. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with agricultural land uses.

Additionally, no Williamson Act contracted lands would be impacted due to the Project, and the Project sites are not subject to a Williamson Act contract. With the addition of the well, the land use designation will not change. The proposed Project does not conflict with any forest land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land. The proposed Project does not include any changes which will affect the existing environment by conversion of farmland or forest land. Therefore, the Project has no impact on agricultural and forest resources.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
69 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 18
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The climate of the City of Sanger and the San Joaquin Valley is characterized by long, hot summers and stagnant, foggy winters. Precipitation is low and temperature inversions are common. These characteristics are conducive to the formation and retention of air pollutants an d are in part influenced by the surrounding mountains which intercept precipitation and act as a barrier to the passage of cold air and air pollutants.

The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.

Air quality plans or attainment plans are used to bring the applicable air basin into attainment with all state and federal ambient air quality standards designed to protect the health and safety of residents within that air basin. Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment”, “non- 70 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 19
attainment”, or “extreme non-attainment” areas for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the State standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The San Joaquin Valley is designated as a State and Federal extreme non - attainment area for O3, a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5, a State non -attainment area for PM10, and Federal and State attainment area for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.

Standards and attainment status for listed pollutants in the Air District can be found in Table 1. Note that both state and federal standards are presented.

Table 1 - Standards and Attainment Status for Listed Pollutants in the Air District Federal Standard California Standard
Ozone 0.075 ppm (8-hr avg)

0.07 ppm (8-hr avg)

0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)
Carbon Monoxide

9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)

35.0 ppm (1-hr avg)

9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)

20.0 ppm (1-hr avg)
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual avg)

0.30 ppm (annual avg)

0.18 ppm (1-hr avg)
Sulfur Dioxide

0.03 ppm (annual avg)

0.14 ppm (24-hr avg)

0.5 ppm (3-hr avg)

0.04 ppm (24-hr avg)

0.25 ppm (1hr avg)
Lead

1.5 µg/m3 (calendar quarter)

0.15 µg/m3 (rolling 3-month avg)

1.5 µg/m3 (30-day avg)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 (24-hr avg)
20 µg/m3 (annual avg)
50 µg/m3 (24-hr avg)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 µg/m3 (annual avg)
35 µg/m3 (24-hr avg)
12 µg/m3 (annual avg)
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Additional State regulations include:

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program – This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.
71 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 20
U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program – The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to a chieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off -road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off - road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off -road diesel equipment throughout the state.

California Global Warming Solutions Act – Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which was phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions levels.

RESPONSES
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). At the Federal level, the SJVAB is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, attainment for PM 10 and CO, and nonattainment fort PM 2.5. At the State level, the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for the 8 -hour ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards. Although the Federal 1- hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, areas must still attain this standard, and the SJVAPCD had requested an EPA finding that the SJVAB has attained the standard based on 2011 -2013 data1. To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPC D has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
• Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (2004);

1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19, 2015. Page 28. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed March 2022. 72 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 21
• 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard; • 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation; and • 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

Because of the region’s non -attainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10, if the project -generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG or NOx), PM 10, or PM 2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project uses were to result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles tra veled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

The annual significance thresholds to be used for the Project for construction and operational emissions are as follows2:
• 10 tons per year ROG;
• 10 tons per year NOx;
• 15 tons per year PM10; and
• 15 tons per year PM2.5.

Project Emissions
Site preparation and Project construction would involve installation of a conductor casing, cementing operations, constructing above ground mud pits and a basin area for drilling debris retention areas, and other various activities associated with drilling and pumping water . During construction, the Project could generate pollutants such as hydrocarbons, oxi des of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and suspended PM. A major source of PM would be windblown dust generated during construction activities. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Vehicles leaving the site could deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity a nd local weather conditions. PM 10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

2 San Joaquin Valley Air Control District – Air Quality Threshold of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed March 2022. 73 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 22
The proposed well will not generate emissions once constructed. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. Using project type and size, the Air District has pre -quantified emissions and determined a size below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Long term air emissions are typically associated with vehicl e trips associated with new development. For example, the Air District pre-determined that residential developments that would generate less than 1,453 vehicle trips per day would not exceed any established criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. As the p roposed well Project will not result in vehicle trips (other than minor temporary trips associated with construction and then periodic maintenance once operational ) it is determined that the Project could not exceed any air emission thresholds established by the Air District.

However, during construction, the contractor will be required to adhere to the Air District’s rules and regulations, including Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions), Rule 4002, Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

As described above, construction/operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project uses would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional air quality attainment plans and would not result in a significant contribution to the region’s air quality non-attainment status3. Likewise, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant within the SJVAPCD jurisdiction.

Finally, the Project would also not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. It will not cumulatively increase any criteria pollutant and will not result in substantial pollutant concentrations.

Any impacts to air resources would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in the City of Sanger and surrounded by residences to the north and east, and agricultural uses to the south and the west. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on -site could create localized odors. These

3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19, 2015. Page 65. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed March 2022. 74 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 23
odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyon d the Project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant.

As such, the proposed Project is not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

75 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 24
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and G ame 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
federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or ot her
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?

76 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 25
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is located in a portion of the central San Joaquin Valley that has, for decades, experienced intensive agricultural and urban disturbances. Current agricultural endeavors in the region include dairies, groves, and row crops.

Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm dry summers are followed by cool moist winters. Summer temperatures usually exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely raise much above 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation w ithin the proposed Project site is about 10 inches, almost 85% of which falls between the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and storm-water readily infiltrates the soils of the surrounding the sites.

Native plant and animal species once abun dant in the region have become locally extirpated or have experienced large reductions in their populations due to conversion of upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats to agricultural and urban uses. Remaining native habitats are particularly valuable to n ative wildlife species including special status species that still persist in the region.

The preferred well installation site comprised approximately 0.2 acres in an active construction area of hardpacked, levelled, and contoured bare ground, bordered by an almond orchard to the south, dense residential development to the east, and an active construction site to the north and west. The alternate well installation site comprised approximately 2 acres in a citrus orchard, surrounded by citrus orchards to the north and west and rural urban development to the south and east.

No aquatic or wetland features occur on the proposed Project site; therefore, jurisdictional waters are considered absent from the site.
77 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 26

RESPONSES
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, eithe r directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. A Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) was prepared for the proposed Project in September 2022, by Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (see Appendix A). As part of the BRE, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the USFWS special status species lists were queried for records of special-status plant and animal species in the Project area. In addition, a field reconnaissance survey of the Project site was conducted in August 2022.

The BRE concluded that the Project will have no effect on habitat that is protected by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, as no such habitat is present on t he Project sites. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

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? Or,
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The BRE concluded t here are no natural waterways, sensitive natural communities, or protected wetlands on the subject site. As such, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The BRE concluded that the Project has the potential to impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Proje ct site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest 78 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 27
abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA.

Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird in the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant effect. Therefore, mitigation measure BIO - 1 (below) shall be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the pote ntial effect to a less -than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Protecting nesting migratory birds.

BIO-1: 1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Or,
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. No trees or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted by the proposed Project.

Additionally, there are no adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans adopted for the area. As such, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
79 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 28
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

RESPONSES
a. Cause a substantial adver se change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Or,
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Or,
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. A Phase I Survey / Class II Inventory Report (Report) was prepared for the proposed Project in September 2022 by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (see Appendix B). The Report included: (1) a records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System to identify previously recorded cultural resources and prior studies in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and surrounding 0.5-mile radius of the APE; (2) a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File for known sacred resources and request for contact information for individuals and tribal representatives who may have i nformation about the Project; (3) desktop archival research; (4) an archaeological and built environment pedestrian survey of the APE; (5) an National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility eva luation of a historical archaeological site; and (6) a buried site sensitivity assessment.
80 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 29
These investigations determined that neither Project site had been surveyed previously, and that no resources were known to exist within them. Two historical structu res, both segments of water conveyance systems, had been recorded within a 0.5-mile (mi) radius of the Preferred Site APE; while 7 historical structures (one railroad line, two water conveyance system segments and four historical residences/properties) had been recorded within that same radius of Alternative Site APE. The NAHC SLF indicated that positive results had been obtained within or in the vicinity of the APEs. Contact letters and follow -up emails were sent to tribes on the NAHC contact list. The Tab le Mountain Rancheria responded requesting consultation on the Project.

The Phase I survey/Class III inventory fieldwork was conducted with parallel transects spaced at 15 - meter intervals walked across both APEs. No cultural resources of any kind were iden tified within the APEs. A determination of No Adverse Effects/No Significant Impact to historic properties or historical resources is recommended for this Project.

No other cultural resources were identified in the APE as a result of the NAHC Sacred Lands File search, archival research, or pedestrian survey. Although no cultural or archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains have been identified in the Project area, the possibility exists that such resources or remains may be disco vered during Project site preparation, excavation and/or grading activities. Mitigation Measures CUL – 1 and CUL – 2 will be implemented to ensure that Project will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL – 1 Should any potentially significant cultural, historical, archaeological or fossil resources be discovered, no further ground disturbance shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director concurs in writing that adequate provisions are in pla ce to protect these resources. Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a certified professional archaeologist or paleontologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. If significance crite ria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; curate materials with recognized scientific or educational repository; and provide a comprehensive final report as required by Senate Bill 18; California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8); California Public Resources Code Sections 5020-5029.5, 5079-5079.65, 5097.9-5097.998, and 5097.98; and California State Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, as applicable.

CUL – 2 In order to ensure that the proposed project does not impact buried human remains during project construction, the project proponent shall be responsible for on -going 81 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 30
monitoring of project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent shall provide the City of Sanger with documentation identifying construction personnel that will be responsible for on -site monitoring. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to ov erlie adjacent remains shall be halted until the Fresno County coroner is contacted and the coroner has made the determinations and notifications required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines that Health and Safety C ode Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American Heritage Commission, then such notice shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the NAHC will conduct the notifications r equired by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the consultations described below have been completed, the landowner shall further ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices where Native American human remains are located, is not disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences and treatments, as prescribed by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The landowner shall be entitled to exercise rights established by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the circumstances established by that provision become applicable.

82 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 31
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
California’s total energy consumption is second-highest in the nation, but in 201 8, the state’s per capita energy consumption ranked fourth-lowest, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.4 In 2018, California was the top -ranking producer of electricity from solar, geothermal and biomass energy, and second in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation.

Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (BTU). As a point of reference, the approximately amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are as follows:

Energy Source BTUs5
Motor Gasoline 120,286 per gallon
Natural Gas 1,037 per cubic foot
Electricity 3,412 per kilowatt-hour
California energy consumption in 2019 was 7788.7 trillion BTU6, as follows:

4 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed March 2022. 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy Units and Calculators Explained.https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and- calculators/british-thermal-units.php. Accessed March 2022. 6 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed March 2022. 83 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 32
2019 Energy Consumption Estimates7
End User BTU of energy
consumed (in trillions)
Percentage of total
consumption
Residential 1455.7 18.7
Commercial 1468.1 18.8
Industrial 1805.3 23.2
Transportation 3059.6 39.3
Total 7788.7 --

Total electrical consumption by Fresno County in 2020 was 8017.83 GWh8, while total Gas consumption was 325.92 million therms9.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that approximately 36.42 million vehicles were registered in the state in 2019, while in 2018 a total estimated 347.2 billion vehicle miles were traveled (VMT).10
Applicable Regulations
California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 comprises the California Energy Code, which was adopted to ensure that building construction, system design and installation achieve energy efficiency . The California Energy Code was first established in 1978 by the CEC in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption, and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The standards are updated periodically to increase the baseline energy efficiency requirements. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements to enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity production

7U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed March 2022. 8 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed March 2022.
9 California Energy Commission. Gas Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed March 2022. 10 Caltrans. 2020. California Transportation Fact Booklet. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/caltrans-fact-booklets/2020-cfb-v2-a11y.pdf. Accessed January 2022. 84 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 33
by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part II, CALGreen) The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen in Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code) for all new construction statewide on July 17, 2008. Originally a volunteer measure, the code became mandatory in 2010 and the most recent update (2019) will go into effect on January 1, 20 20. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco- friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels.

The 2019 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; water use; weather resistance and moisture management; construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling; building maintenance and operation; pollutant control; indoor air quality; environmental comfort; and outdoor air quality. Mandator y measures for residential development pertain to green building; planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; environmental quality; and installer and special inspector qualifications.

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350)
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) was passed by California Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, and establishes new clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the year 2030 and beyond. SB 350 establishes a greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels for the State of California, further enhancing the ability for the state to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107)
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was amended under SB 107 to require accelerated energy reduction goals by requiring that by the year 2010, 20 percent of electricity sales in the st ate be served by renewable energy resources. In years following its adoption, Executive Order S -14-08 was signed, requiring electricity retail sellers to provide 33 percent of their service loads with renewable energy by the year 2020. In 2011, SB X1 -2 was signed, aligning the RPS target with the 33 percent requirement by the year 2020. This new RPS applied to all state electricity retailers, including publicly owned utilities, investor -owned utilities, electrical service providers, and community choice aggregators. All entities included under the RPS were required to adopt the RPS 20 percent by year 2020 reduction goal by the end of 2013, adopt a reduction goal of 25 percent by the end 85 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 34
of 2016, and meet the 33 percent reduction goal by the end of 2020. In addition, the Air Resources Board, under Executive Order S -21-09, was required to adopt regulations consistent with these 33 percent renewable energy targets.

RESPONSES
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes construction of a water well and the associated operational activities. The Project will consume moderate amounts of energy in the short-term during Project construction ; however, Project operations are temporary in nature and are expected to consume minimal amounts of energy.

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

Operational Project energy consumption would occur for multiple purposes, including pumps and other vehicle and equipment use. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly increases energy savings, and it is generally assumed that compliance with Title 24 ensures projects will not res ult in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As discussed in Impact XVII – Transportation/Traffic, at build-out the Project will generate minimal daily trips (for maintenance and operations) . The length of these trips and the in dividual vehicle fuel efficiencies are not known; therefore, the resulting energy consumption cannot be accurately calculated.

Adopted federal vehicle fuel standards have continually improved since their original adoption in 1975 and assists in avoiding the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy by vehicles.

As discussed previously, the proposed Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design standards at the local and state level. The Project would be su bject to energy 86 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 35
conservation requirements in the California Energy Code and CALGreen. Adherence to state code requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non - renewable resources due to building operation.

Therefore, any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
87 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 36

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 most recently
adopted Uniform Building Code creating

88 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 37
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Sanger is located in the Fresno County in the Central San Joaquin Valley region . General landforms include alluvial terraces and floodplains. Elevations range from 375 feet directly northeast of the City to 315 feet along the Kings River southeast of the City. According to the U.S. Geologic Survey of California, the Modesto Formation underlies the Sanger Planning Area and includes alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand and silt.11

RESPONSES
a-i. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. a-ii. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
a-iii. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a-iv. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

11 City of Sanger General Plan 2025. https://ci.sanger.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/85/2025-General-Plan-PDF. Accessed March 2022. 89 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 38
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone as delineated by the 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Act. The nearest known potentially active fault is the Independence Fault in the Kearsarge Peak Quad, located approximately 70 miles east of the site. No active faults have been mapped within the Project boundaries, so there is no potential for fault rupture. It is anticipated that the proposed Project site could be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life . The Project would be engineered and constructed in strict accord ance with the earthquake resistant design requirements contained in the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) for Seismic Zone II, as well as Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and therefore would avoid potential seismically ind uced hazards on planned structures. The Project site has a generally flat topography, and is not at risk of landslide. The impact of seismic hazards on the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the proposed Project will construct above-ground mud pits and debris detention basin areas, install a conductor casing, and other activities associated with the water well. The Project areas have a generally flat topography. Construction activities associated with the Project involves soil-moving work. These activities could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the Project site. During construction, nuisance flow caused by minor rain could flow off-site. The City and/or contractor would be required to employ appropriate sediment and erosion control BMPs as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would be required by the California National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of the SVJAPCD fugitive dust control measures (See Section III). Once construction is complete, the Project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with state regulations will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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?
90 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 39
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Section VI a. above. The site is not at significant risk from ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslide and is otherwise considered geologically stable. The City of Sanger sits on top of a mix of different loam classifications; however, the predominant soil near the proposed Project site is Hanford Sandy Loam.12 This soil type is characterized as well drained with negligible to low runoff and moderately rapid permeability, and with low shrink/swell potential, which is generally not conducive to liquification. Additionally, liquefaction typica lly occurs when there is shallow groundwater, low-density non-plastic soils, and high-intensity ground motion.

The City of Sanger is relatively flat which precludes the occurrence of landslides. Subsidence is typically related to over-extraction of groundwater from certain types of geologic formations where the water is partly responsible for supporting the ground surface . The City of Sanger is not recognized by the U.S.

Geological Service as being in an area of subsidence . 13 Additionally, o ngoing potential impacts of groundwater depletion and subsidence are constantly being monitored by USGS through a system of extensometers positioned throughout the San Joaquin valley. Continuous measurements and aquifer - system response analysis enables app ropriate governing of parameters set to mitigate subsidence impacts in the region. Impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The Project does not include the construction, replacement, or disturbance of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project will not be tying into the existing sewer services and will instead utilize temporary portable toilets for staff during construction. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 2022. 13 U.S. Geological Service. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Accessed March 2022..
91 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 40
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no unique geologic features in the Project vicinity. Although there are no known paleontological resources located in the Project area, site development does have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy an unknown paleontological resource. Mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL -2 are included to reduce an y impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 and CUL-2

92 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 41
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 emissions of greenhouse gases?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere play an important role in moderating the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high -frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs are transparent to solar radiation but are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. Consequently, radiation that would otherwise escape back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the earth’s atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Scientific research to date indicates that some of the observed climate change is a result of increased GHG emissions associated with human activity. Among the GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, Nitrous Oxide (NOx), and chlorofluorocarbons. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are considered responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect. GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable, in large part, to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.

In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation.

Global climate change is, indeed, a global issue. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria pollutants and TACs (which are pollutants of regional and/or local conce rn). Global climate change, if it occurs, could potentially affect water resources in California. Rising temperatures could be anticipated to result in sea-level rise (as polar ice caps melt) and possibly change the timing and amount of precipitation, which could alter water quality. According to some, climate change could result in more extreme weather patterns; both heavier precipitation that could lead to flooding, as well as more extended drought periods.
93 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 42
There is uncertainty regarding the timing, magni tude, and nature of the potential changes to water resources as a result of climate change; however, several trends are evident. Snowpack and snowmelt may also be affected by climate change. Much of California’s precipitation falls as snow in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, and snowpack represents approximately 35 percent of the state’s useable annual water supply. The snowmelt typically occurs from April through July; it provides natural water flow to streams and reservoirs after the annual rainy season has ended. As air temperatures increase due to climate change, the water stored in California’s snowpack could be affected by increasing temperatures resulting in: (1) decreased snowfall, and (2) earlier snowmelt.

RESPONSES
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 emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Emissions from construction are temporary in nature. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has implemented a guidance policy for development projects within their jurisdiction. This policy, “Guidance for Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” approved by the Board on December 17, 2009, does not address temporary GHG emissions from construction, nor does this policy establish numeric thresholds for ongoing GHG emissions. Therefore, co nstruction-generated GHGs are less than significant. Once constructed, the Project does not include any significant long -term emissions (usually associated with vehicle trips). As such , the Project will not conflict with any applicable GHG plans/regulation s and operational GHG emissions are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
94 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 43
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 one -quarter
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 two 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

95 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 44
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 wildland fires?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The preferred well installation site comprises approximately 0.2 acres in an active construction area of hardpacked, levelled, and contoured bare ground, bordered by an almond orchard to the south, dense residential development to the east, and an active construction site to the north and west. The alternate well installation site comprises approximately 2 acres in a citrus orchard, surrounded by citrus orchards to the north and west and rural urban development to the south and east.

The proposed Project site is approximately 9 miles northwest of Sequoia Field Airport, while the Fresno- Yosemite International Airport is the closest regional airport, approximately 20 miles northwest.

RESPONSES
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? Less than Significant Impact. This impact is associated with hazards caused by the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the env ironment. Proposed Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. 96 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 45
In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program through the submission and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction activities to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur during construction activities.

The Project would not create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment occur.

Therefore, the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the Project site, as the nearest school is Madison Elementary School, approximately 0.4 miles north of the proposed preferred well site. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

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?
No Impact. A database search was conducted to identify recorded hazardous materials incidents in the Project area. The search included cleanup sites under Federal Superfund (National Priorities List), State Response, and other federal, state, and local agency lists. The proposed Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker 14 and

14 California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=sanger. Accessed March 2022. 97 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 46
DTSC Envirostor15 databases). Additionally, there are no hazardous materials incidents or cleanup sites within 0.25 miles radius of the Project site. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest public airport to the Project site is the Reedley Municipal Airport (approximately seven miles southeast). The nearest commercial airport is Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Fresno Yosemite International Airport is a joint civil-military public airport in eastern Fresno, approximately 10 miles northwest of the City of Sanger via State Route 180/Peach Avenue. The proposed Project is not located within any airport safety zone. The Project will have no impact to airport operations.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project involves construction of a new stand-alone municipal water well. Construction activities will be temporary in nature and will not cause any road closures that could interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The construction contractor will be required to work with the City and County (public works, police/fire, etc.) if and when roadway diversions are required to ensure that adequate access is maintained for residents and emergency vehicles. As such, any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

15 California Department of Toxic Control Substances. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Search. Accessed March 2022. 98 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 47
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. There are no wildlands on or near the Project site. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

99 Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 48
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

b. Substantially de crease 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
offsite;

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?
100
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 49
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Sanger Water System has nine wells, two elevated storage tanks and one ground-level storage tank which supply water through a grid distribution system of 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12-inch diameter mains. The age of the various system components ranges from approximately 70-75 years for the older areas of town, to 1-5 years for newly developed areas. Groundwater is the sole water supply for the City. The Kings River, and a network of irrigation canals which are fed by the river, help to recharge the Kings Subbasin groundwater aquifer, along with runoff from the foothills, which has historically been sufficient to meet the needs of the area, although cumulative impacts to the aquifer have resulted in a state of critical overdraft. The City of Sanger is a member of the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SKGSA) and through the adopted Groundwater Sustaina bility Plan (GSP) for the SKGSA, the City of Sanger and the entire Kings Basin plan to attain groundwater sustainability by 2040.

RESPONSES
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact . The primary purpose of the proposed Project is to address the City of Sanger’s need for a new municipal water well to add capacity to its current system. Due to the decline in production from its exis ting wells, it is imperative for the City to secure additional water capacity to serve its current and expanding population. Due to its location, this well would also benefit the Tombstone Territory, which is served by the City of Sanger.

Water Quality
101
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 50
The State Water Board, through the Division of Drinking Water, has regulatory jurisdiction over the operation of the Water System by the City. The Sanger Water System is currently in compliance with State Water Board regulations. The Sanger Water System contains treatment to remove 1,2 -Dibromo-3- Chloropropane (DBCP) using Granulated Activated Carbon filters at several well sites as shown in Table 1 of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) prepared by Yamabe & Horn Engineering, Inc. All wells include chlorine disinfection treatment and six also have Granulated Active Carbon (GAC) units to provide further treatment to meet water quality requirements.

Construction
The construction of the well would occur in three phases. The first phase would be the construction of a test well to determine the potential capacity of the well and to test for water quality of the aquifer. If the capacity of the well and the water quality meet Health Department standards, then the second phase for Drilling and Developing the well would occur. This phase would drill the well hole and install blank and louvered casing to the necessary depths for the well. The third and last phase would be the pump and motor phase. This would include the installation of a drive motor, discharge line, sand separator, emergency generator, site lighting, electrical equipment and other site improvements.

The proposed construction activities could temporarily incr ease runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

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

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

Poorly maintained vehicles an d heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared prior to commencement of Project construction. When 102
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 51
properly designed and implemented, these “good-housekeeping” practices are expected to reduce short- term construction-related impacts to less than significant.

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

Operation
Once constructed, the Project will provide supplemental water to the City. The water extracted by the well will be treated in compliance with the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. There are no water discharge activities associated with the well, once constructed.

Therefore, any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted earlier, the proposed Project intends to construct and operate a new water well to address the needs of the City of Sanger.

City of Sanger Water Demand - Annual Water Production and Average Day Demand The production capacity of the City’s wells currently varies from 200 to 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm).

Table 1 of the PER shows both the historical data for each well and a projection through the year 2030, also showing expected future wells needed to meet the demands of the system, including a new well.

The current combined capacity of the wells is 6,350 gpm.

Table 2 of the PER shows the annual water production by the City and the number of water service connections for the calendar years 2015 through 2020. Over that span, the annual production ranges from a low of 1,686.82 million gallons (MG) in 2015 to a high of 1963.37 MG in 2020. Figure 1 of the PER depicts the annual production for these years. The average annual production over the last 5 years is 1,837.82 MG. The number of service connections are also shown in Table 2 of the PER and have increased steadily from 6,418 in 2015 up to 6,973 in 2020. The average number of service connections over the last 5 years is 103
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 52
6,805. Industrial and commercial water users consume about 30% of the City’s annual production, per the 2020 Sanger Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

The City system’s current source capacity is below the historical and projected MDD for the years 2016 to 2023. The source capacity does not catch up to demand until Well 19 is projected to come on -line in 2024, but then goes back to even in 2026 before exceeding MDD in 2027 with the construction of a third new well. The practical implication of the existing situation is reduced pressures during days of maximum demand, usually in July or August. This has been experienced during the last several summers, the worst of which was in 2021 where existing conditions led the City of Sanger to adopt Council Resolution No. 2021 -58, declaring a municipal water emergency on September 2nd. The PER includes further information on Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Demand for the City.

Additional Demand from Tombstone Territory
The demand information provided above is taken and projected from historical City of Sanger data. In addition to these typical demands, there will be additional demand generated by the provision of water from the City of Sanger to the Tombstone Territory, an unincorporated disadvantaged community made up of approximately 57 parcels located near Greenwood and Central Avenues, about 1/2 mile south of the Sanger City Limits. The residents of Tombstone have be en experiencing water quantity and quality issues including but not limited to well failures and well water testing above the MCL for various constituents of concerns. The City of Sanger has agreed to provide water service to Tombstone to replace private w ells of those residents that wish to connect to the new pipelines, with construction of the transmission and water distribution pipelines, as well as the new service lines to the applicable properties, funded by California AB 74 and Proposition 68.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, as population and development within the City increases, additional wells and a storage tanks will be added to the water system to meet the growing demand.

Sufficient water supply is expected through Year 2040 (planning h orizon of the City’s UWMP). In addition, implementation of the City’s policies will incrementally reduce the City’s incremental cumulative impact on groundwater by encouraging groundwater recharge, limiting development where a demonstrated source of water is not available, ensuring continued participation in regional integrated water resources planning and project development, facilitating water conservation, and protecting groundwater quality16. The construction and operation of the proposed new water well will ensure that

16 City of Sanger 2035 General Plan EIR, page 3.10-27.
104
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 53
the City is able to meet current and expected demands of the City, mitigate the effects of the drought, and provide water service to the Tombstone Territory. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

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 offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of exis ting or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes minor changes to the existing stormwater drainage pattern o f the area through the installation of impermeable (concrete/ asphalt) surfaces and/or structures associated with the new well. Once constructed, the areas around the well surface area will be restored to pre -Project conditions. It is not expected that the minor increase in impermeable surface will substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. During construction, the City would be required to obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize erosion and potential site runoff. Standard construction practices and compliance with state and federal regulations, City ordinances and regulations, the Uniform Building Code, and adherence to professional engineering design approved by the City of Sanger will reduce or elim inate potential drainage impacts from the Project. As such, any impacts resulting from drainage patterns would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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?
105
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 54
No Impact. The proposed Project site is not within any special flood hazard areas, or other areas of flood hazard (as identified by current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Ma p). In addition, the Project does not include any housing or structures that would be subject to flooding either from a watercourse or from dam inundation. There are no bodies of water near the site that would create a potential risk of hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. There will be a no impacts associated with Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

106
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 55
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed new water well will be installed either on a 0.2 -acre site west of Greenwood Avenue and south of North Avenue, which is the City’s preferred site (See Figure 2), or on a 2 -acre site west of S.

Academy Avenue between the E. Butler Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (See Figure 3).

RESPONSES
a. Physically divide an established community? OR,
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regu lation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed Project includes construction of a water well and the associated drilling activities. The preferred well site is located within a developing residential subdivision and the proposed well facility would occur within that subdivision adjacent to future residential homes. The alternate well site would occur within an agricultural field adjacent to S. Academy Avenue. Installation of the well at either location would not divide an established community nor cause displacement of any housing.

The construction and operation of the Project itself would not cause any land use changes to the site nor in the surrounding vicinity. The proposed Project has no characteristics that would physically divide the City of Sanger. Access to the existing surrounding establishments will remain. 107
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 56
The proposed water well would not conflict with current zoning in and around the Project site and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitiga ting an environmental effect . The Project is consistent with the Sanger Water Master Plan .

Therefore, there are no impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

108
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 57
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) had inventoried mineral lands in the Sanger Vicinity. CDMG delineated “Resource Sector K” along the Kings River that includes a large portion of the active stream channel and floodplain extending from the Avocado Lake downstream to an area south of Goodfellow Avenue. While there are no mineral resource extraction operations within the City, extraction is occurring along the Kings River and along the northernmost section of Collins Creek.17

RESPONSES
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? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources in the proposed Project area and none are identified in the City’s General Plan or Fresno County’s General Plan near the proposed Project site. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

17 Ibid.
109
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 58
XIII. NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 groundborne
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 two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Noise is most often described as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people.

The City of Sanger is impacted by a multitude of noise sources. Principal noise sources include traffic on roadways, agricultural noise and industrial noise. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities, and they are predominant sources of noise in the City. The Project is located in an area with a mix of uses. The predominant noise sources in the Project area include traffic on local roadways and noise associated with rural residences and active agriculture.

110
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 59

RESPONSES
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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact.

Short-term (Construction) Noise Impacts
Proposed Project construction related activities will involve temporary noise sources. Typical construction related equipment include trenchers, small tractors and excavators. During the proposed Project construction, noise from construction related activ ities will contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity. Activities involved in construction will generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 5, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise controls.

Table 5
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75

The distinction between short-term construction noise impacts and long-term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short -term noise from construction is inevi table and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short -term noise at levels that they would not accept for permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and might preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time in urban environments. Most residents of urban areas recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion. 111
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 60
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel - wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Construction associated with the proposed Project is earthmoving activities associated installing pipelines and installing equipment.

The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. 18 Table 3 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

Table 3
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment VdB at 25 ft
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Vibration from construction activities will be temporary and not exceed the Federal Transit Authority threshold for the nearest sensitive receptors.

Operational Noise Impacts
Upon completion, t he primary source s of noise from the proposed Project will be from pumps and associated motorized equipment. However, these mechanisms will be enclosed and a block wall will be installed at the property line to reduce noise generated by well site activities. The nearest noise receptors (residences) are located within 200 feet of the approximate proposed well sites. The areas are active with nearby roadways, residences, businesses and agricultural operations, and as such the proposed Project will not likely introduce a new significant source of noise that isn’t already in the area.

As such, any impacts resulting from an increase in noise levels or from groundborne noise levels is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are 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 two 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?

18 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report No. FTA-VA-90-1003 prepared for the U.S. Federal Transit Administration by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. , May 2006. Page 7 -5. http://www.rtd- fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/14_Section_38_NoiseandVibration_Part3.pdf. Accessed February 2019. 112
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 61
No Impact. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan , nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport to the Project site is the Reedley Municipal Airport (approximately seven miles southeast). Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

113
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 62
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial 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
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Sanger’s Water System is operated by the City’s Public Works Department which operates and maintains the water system for the City, serving a current population of 27,094 people. The number of water service connections, shown in Table 2 of the PER have increased steadily from 6,418 in 2015 up to 6,973 in 2020. The City updated its General Plan in 2020, using a population growth rate of 1.7%, which was characterized as a “Low-Medium” projection based on analysis of the City’s growth over the period between 2000 and 2015. The 2020 UWMP estimated a growth projection of 1.7 2%, based on Census data over the last 20 years. These projections align well, and the slightly higher factor from the UWMP was used for the Preliminary Engineering Report to project the increase in the number of service connections to the water system, as well as the applicable water demand per service connection.

RESPONSES
a. Induce substantial 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?
No Impact. There are no new homes associated with the proposed Project and there are no residential structures currently on -site. The proposed Project is needed to provide a water source to the City of Sanger and Tombstone Territory that meets statewide water quality standards. The proposed Project 114
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 63
would temporarily provide jobs in the Sanger area, which could be readily filled by the existing employment base, given the City’s existing unemployment rates. The proposed Project will not affect any regional population, housing, or employment projections anticipated by City policy documents.

There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

115
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 64
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing Project area is protected by the City of Sanger Police Department, which is headquartered at 1700 7th Street Sanger, CA 93657. The City of Sanger Fire Department provides primary fire protection within City Limits. The Sanger Fire Department is located at 601 West Avenue Sanger, CA 93657. There are no public parks or schools in the vicinity of the proposed Project site.

RESPONSES
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:

Fire protection?
116
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 65
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed Project would provide water to the residents of the City of Sanger and the Tombstone Territory. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth because it will only serve existing residents of the community. As s uch, the Project will not increase demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities. There would be no impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
117
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 66
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
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?

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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There are eight parks within the City of Sanger. These parks are managed by the City of Sanger’s Parks and Recreation Department. This Department also supervises and coordinates a wide variety of community programs and activities.

RESPONSES
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? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction of residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities from increased usage or result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. The Project would have no impact to existing parks.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
118
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 67
XVII. TRANSPORTATION/

TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Sanger is 1.5 miles south of SR 180 and 10 miles northeast of the Golden State Highway/SR

99. There are four main arterials that divide the City, including Academy Avenue, Jensen Avenue, 9 th Street, and North Avenue.

RESPONSES
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 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?
119
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 68
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would provide water to the City of Sanger and the Tombstone Territory. There are no components of the proposed Project that would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. Construction activities will be temporary in nature and will not cause any road closures that could interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The construction contractor will be required to work with the City and County (public works, police/fire, etc.) if and when roadway diversions are required to ensure that adequate access is maintained for residents and emergency vehicles. Once installed, the new water well would not generate significant additional traffic trips per day. The only operational trips associated with the Project would be for routine maintenance or inspection. The Project would not conflict with a circulation program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

120
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 69
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

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 the Public Resources
Code section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

121
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 70

RESPONSES
a). Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, requesting a con tact list of applicable Native American Tribes, which was provided to the City. The City provided letters to the listed Tribes, notifying them of the Project and requesting consultation, if desired. A response came from Robert Pennell of the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe requesting further consultation. The City will work with the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe regarding their request for consultation. No other responses were received. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
122
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 71
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

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 trea tment 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 a nd reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proponent for the proposed Project is the City of Sanger, which has responsibility for providing water and wastewater services for the community.
123
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 72

RESPONSES
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project itself involves the construction and operation of a new water well in the City of Sanger and connection to the City ’s existing water system. Any environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation ar e discussed within this document.

Mitigation Measures: The Project will require multiple mitigation measures as identified throughout this document.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the decline in production from its existing wells, the City of Sanger needs to secure additional water capacity to meet customer demand. The city system’s current source capacity is below the historical and projected MDD for the years 2016 to 2023. The source capacity does not catch up to demand until a new well is projected to come on-line in 2024 but then goes back to even in 2026 before exceeding MDD in 2027 with the construction of a third new well. The practical implication of the existing situa tion is reduced pressures during days of maximum demand, usually in July or August. This has been experienced during the last several summers, the worst of which was in 2021 where existing conditions led the City of Sanger to adopt Council Resolution No. 2 021-58, declaring a municipal water emergency in September 2021. For further details on the City of Sanger’s water demand and the additional demand from the Tombstone Territory, see section X - Hydrology and Water Quality herein and the Preliminary Engineering Report.

The City’s current capacity issues will be partially mitigated by this proposed production well. A new well will help the City in meeting Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Peak Hour Demand . For the purposes of this study, it is assumed this new wel l will produce 1200 gpm. Based upon the 5 - year average MMD factor of 0.97 gpm per service connection, this well could serve approximately 1,200 single family residential homes. As discussed in Section X - Hydrology and Water Quality, the impacts to water supply is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

124
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 73
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?
No Impact. The proposed Project includes construction and operation of water well in the City of Sanger.

No component of the proposed Project would generate wastewater. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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, a nd local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Proposed Project construction and operation will generate minimal amounts of solid waste. The proposed new water system will be un -manned and therefore won’t generate waste on an on-going basis. The proposed Project will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste during construction. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

125
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 74
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 r esult in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Sanger’s planning area is composed of urbanized portions of land and the surrounding agricultural fields. The Project site has ensured fire protection by the Sanger Fire Department, located at 601 West Avenue. Given the location of the nearest fire station, respon se time is expected to be extremely quick in the rare event of a fire.

RESPONSES
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 126
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 75
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 runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in a highly disturbed area (roads, active agriculture, water conveyance facilities, etc.) which precludes the risk of wildfire. The area is flat in nature which would limit the risk of downslope flooding and landslides, and limit any wildfire spread.

To receive construction permits, the proposed Project would be required to be in compliance with the adopted emergency response plan. As such, any wildfire risk to the Project structures or people would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
127
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 76

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?

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?

RESPONSES
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 128
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 77
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important e xamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impa ct on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effe cts of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the e ffects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative condit ions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). The impact is less than significant.

c. Does the project have environmental effects whi ch will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
129
Sanger New Water Well Project | Initial Study
CITY OF SANGER| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 78

LIST OF PREPARERS

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
• Travis Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner • Deepesh Tourani, Associate Planner

Persons and Agencies Consulted

• Josh Rogers, PE (Yamabe & Horn Engineers)

130

Appendices

131

Appendix A
Biological Resource Evaluation
132

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE

EVALUATION

September 2022

SANGER WATER WELL PROJECT

SANGER, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291

PREPARED BY:

Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC
9493 N Fort Washington Road, Suite 108
Fresno, CA 93730
www.colibri-ecology.com

133

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
i
Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ iv Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... v

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Purpose and Need of Proposed Project .............................................................................. 5

1.5 Consultation History ............................................................................................................ 5

1.6 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 5

1.6.1 Federal Requirements .................................................................................................. 5

1.6.2 State Requirements ...................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Desktop Review ................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey ..................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Effects Analysis and Significance Criteria ......................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Effects Analysis .......................................................................................................... 13

2.3.2 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................... 13

3.0 Results .................................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Desktop Review ................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Reconnaissance Survey ..................................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Land Use and Habitats .............................................................................................. 23

3.2.2 Plant and Animal Species Observed .......................................................................... 25

3.2.3 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle ..................................................................................... 26

3.2.4 Nesting Birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...................................................... 26 134

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
ii

3.2.5 Regulated Habitats .................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Special-Status Species ....................................................................................................... 27

4.0 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 28

4.1 Effects Determinations ..................................................................................................... 28

4.1.1 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................... 28

4.1.3 Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................... 28

4.1.4 Regulated Habitats .................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Significance Determinations ............................................................................................. 28

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................... 29

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................... 30

4.2.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects ................................................................... 30

5.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 31

Figures
Figure 1. Project site vicinity map. ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project site map showing the preferred well installation site. ........................................... 3 Figure 3. Project site map showing the alternate well installation site. ............................................ 4 Figure 4. Reconnaissance survey area map showing the preferred well installation site. ............ 11 Figure 5. Reconnaissance survey area map showing the alternate well installation site. ............. 12 Figure 6. CNDDB occurrence map. .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 7. Photograph of the preferred well installation site, showing surrounding active construction site and levelled and contoured bare ground. .......................................................... 23 Figure 8. Photograph of the preferred well installation site, showing levelled bare ground at the site and almond orchard to the south. ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 9. Photograph of the alternate well installation site, showing a citrus orchard. ................ 24 135

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
iii
Figure 10. Photograph of the alternate well installation site, showing a citrus orchard and bordering roads and rural urban development. ............................................................................. 25

Tables
Table 1. Special-status species, their listing status, habitats, and potential to occur on or near the Project site.. ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 2. Plant and animal species observed during the reconnaissance survey. ........................... 25

Appendices
Appendix A. USFWS list of threatened and endangered species. ….………………..…………….……...……32 Appendix B. CNDDB occurrence records. .…………………………………………………………….……………..….….49 Appendix C. CNPS plant list. ….…………………………………………………………………….………….…………....…..55

136

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
iv
Executive Summary
The City of Sanger proposes to install a new water well (the Project) in Sanger, Fresno County, California. The Project will involve installing the well on either a 0.2-acre site west of S Greenwood Avenue and south of E North Avenue (the preferred site) or on a 2-acre site west of S Academy Avenue between the E Woods Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (the alternate site).

This Project will be funded by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The DWSRF is a state and federal partnership that offers low-cost financing for a wide variety of water quality projects. It is administered by the State of California and is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, the Project must not only meet environmental documentation and review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) but must meet federal cross-cutting requirements as well.

To evaluate whether the Project may affect biological resources under CEQA and federal cross- cutting purview, we (1) obtained official lists from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife of special-status species and designated and proposed critical habitat, (2) reviewed other relevant background information such as satellite imagery and topographic maps, and (3) conducted a field reconnaissance survey of the Project site.

This biological resource evaluation summarizes existing biological conditions on the Project site, the potential for special-status species and regulated habitats to occur on or near the Project site, the potential impacts of the proposed Project on biological resources and regulated habitats, and measures to reduce those potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

We concluded the Project will not affect regulated habitats or special-status species but could affect nesting migratory birds. However, effects can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation.

137

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
v
Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
FC Federal Candidate for Listing
FE Federally listed as Endangered
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FP State Fully Protected
FT Federally listed as Threatened
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
SE State Listed as Endangered
SR State Listed as Rare
SSSC State Species of Special Concern
ST State Listed as Threatened
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey

138

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Sanger proposes to install a new water well in Sanger, Fresno County, California. This proposed project (Project) will be funded by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).

The DWSRF is a state and federal partnership that offers low-cost financing for a wide variety of water quality projects. It is administered by the State of California and partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to this federal nexus, issuing funds from the DWSRF constitutes a federal action, one that requires that the EPA determine whether the proposed action may affect federally protected resources. The Project must therefore comply with requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certain federal environmental laws and regulations.

The purpose of this biological resource evaluation is to assess whether the Project will affect state- or federally protected resources pursuant to CEQA and federal cross-cutting regulatory guidelines. Such resources include species of plants or animals listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as well as those covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the California Native Plant Protection Act, and various other sections of the California Fish and Game Code.

Biological resources considered here also include designated or proposed critical habitat recognized under the FESA. This biological resource evaluation also addresses Project-related impacts to regulated habitats, which are those under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) , State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as well as those addressed under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Executive Order 11988 pertaining to floodplain management, Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

1.2 Project Description

The Project will involve installing a drinking water well.

1.3 Project Location

The Project site is near Sanger in Fresno County, California (Figure 1). The well will be installed on either a 0.2-acre site west of S Greenwood Avenue and south of E North Avenue (the preferred site; Figure 2) or on a 2-acre site west of S Academy Avenue between the East Butler Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (the alternate site; Figure 3). 139

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
2 Figure 1. Project site vicinity map.
140

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
3 Figure 2. Project site map showing the preferred well installation site. 141

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
4 Figure 3. Project site map showing the alternate well installation site.

142

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
5 1.4 Purpose and Need of Proposed Project

The purpose of the Project is to provide drinking water for residential use in and around the City of Sanger. The Project is needed to provide safe drinking water for residents.

1.5 Consultation History

Lists of all species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and all designated or proposed critical habitat under the FESA that could occur near the Project site were obtained by Colibri Senior Scientist Joshua Reece from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) on 19 August 2022 (Appendix A).

1.6 Regulatory Framework

The relevant regulatory requirements and policies that guide the impact analysis of the Project are summarized below.

1.6.1 Federal Requirements

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 United States Code [USC] § 668-668d), originally the Bald Eagle Protection Act, was enacted in 1940 to protect bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the species selected as a national emblem of the United States. The act was amended in 1962 to include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). As amended, the Act prohibits take, possession, and commerce of bald and golden eagles and their parts, products, nests, or eggs, except by valid permit. Take is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Disturb means agitating or bothering to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, injury, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment. This law also prohibits human-induced alterations near previously used nest sites when eagles are not present if upon the eagle’s return it is disturbed as defined above. Take permits may be issued for conducting certain types of lawful activities such as scientific research, propagation, and Indian religious purposes. The USFWS is responsible for enforcing this act.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988 (42 Federal Register 26951, 3 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], 1977 Comp., p. 117) requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long-term and short-term adverse effects associated with occupying and modifying flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of developing floodplains wherever there is a practicable alternative.

Federal Endangered Species Act. The USFWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enforce the provisions stipulated in the FESA of 1973 (16 USC § 1531 et seq.). Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) are protected from take unless a Section 10 permit is 143

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
6 granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agency via a Section 7 consultation. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed action within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present in the project site and determine whether the proposed action may affect such species. Under the FESA, habitat loss is considered an effect to a species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is listed or proposed for listing under the FESA (16 USC § 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, proposed action-related effects to these species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (Public law 94-265; Statutes at Large 90 Stat. 331; 16 U.S.C. ch. 38 § 1801 et seq.) establishes a management system for national marine and estuarine fishery resources. This legislation requires that all federal agencies consult the NMFS regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect “essential fish habitat (EFH).” EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The Magnuson-Stevens Act states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning grounds are considered EFH.

The phrase “adversely affect” refers to any effect that reduces the quality or quantity of EFH.

Federal activities that occur outside of EFH, but which may affect EFH must also be considered.

The Act applies to salmon species, groundfish species, highly migratory species such as tuna, and coastal pelagic species such as anchovies.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The MBTA (16 USC § 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, trading, or other forms of take of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. “Take” is defined as the pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing of birds, their nests, eggs, or young (16 USC § 703 and § 715n).

This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA specifically protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter transport, import, and export, and take. For nests, the definition of take per 50 CFR 10.12 is to collect. The MBTA does not include a definition of an “active nest.” However, the “Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum” issued by the USFWS in 2003 and updated in 2018 clarifies the MBTA in that regard and states that the removal of nests, without eggs or birds, is legal under the MBTA, provided no possession (which is interpreted as holding the nest with the intent of retaining it) occurs during the destruction (USFWS 2018).

National Environmental Policy Act. The purposes of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347), including all relevant subsequent guidelines and regulations, include encouraging "harmony between [humans] and their environment and promoting efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment… and stimulate the health and welfare of [humanity]".

The purposes of NEPA are accomplished by evaluating the effects of federal actions. The results of these evaluations are presented to the public, federal agencies, and public officials in 144

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
7 document format (e.g., Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements) for consideration prior to taking official action or making official decisions. Environmental documents prepared pursuant to NEPA must be completed before federal actions can be implemented. The NEPA process requires careful evaluation of the need for action, and that federal actions be considered alongside all reasonable alternatives, including the No Action alternative. NEPA also requires that the potential impacts on the human environment be considered for each alternative. Detailed implementing regulations for NEPA are contained in 40 C.F.R. 1500 et seq.

United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction. Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, tributaries of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States (33 CFR part 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and related Regional Supplement (USACE 1987 and 2008). Construction activities, including direct removal, filling, hydrologic disruption, or other means in jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of dredged or fill material into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The SWRCB is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with significant natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition. The Act safeguards the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development.

1.6.2 State Requirements

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction. The CDFW has regulatory jurisdiction over lakes and streams in California. Activities that divert or obstruct the natural flow of a stream; substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW in accordance with California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

California Endangered Species Act. The CESA of 1970 (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq., and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Subsection 670.2, 670.51) prohibits the take of 145

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
8 species listed under CESA (14 CCR Subsection 670.2, 670.5). Take is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Under CESA, state agencies are required to consult with the CDFW when preparing CEQA documents. Consultation ensures that proposed projects or actions do not have a negative effect on state-listed species.

During consultation, CDFW determines whether take would occur and identifies “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for the project and conservation of special-status species. CDFW can authorize take of state-listed species under Sections 2080.1 and 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code in those cases where it is demonstrated that the impacts are minimized and mitigated. Take authorized under section 2081(b) must be minimized and fully mitigated. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. Under CESA, CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under state law (Fish and Game Code § 2 070).

CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, a state or local agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether the proposed Project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA list would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Impacts to species of concern or fully protected species would be considered significant under certain circumstances.

California Environmental Quality Act. The CEQA of 1970 (Subsections 21000–21178) requires that CDFW be consulted during the CEQA review process regarding impacts of proposed projects on special-status species. Special-status species are defined under CEQA Guidelines subsection 15380(b) and (d) as those listed under FESA and CESA and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under these criteria or by the scientific community. Therefore, species considered rare or endangered are addressed in this biological resource evaluation regardless of whether they are afforded protection through any other statute or regulation. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventories the native flora of California and ranks species according to rarity (CNPS 2022). Plants with Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B are considered special-status species under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare and endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (i.e., candidate species) would occur. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agency has an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

California Native Plant Protection Act. The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900–1913) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and otherwise rare species of native plants. 146

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
9 Provisions of the act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require the project proponent to notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use, which allows CDFW to salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed.

Nesting birds. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800 prohibit the possession, incidental take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs. California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 lists birds that are “Fully Protected” as those that may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code § 13000 et. sec.) was established in 1969 and entrusts the SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively Water Boards) with the responsibility to preserve and enhance all beneficial uses of California’s diverse waters. The Act grants the Water Boards authority to establish water quality objectives and regulate point- and nonpoint-source pollution discharge to the state’s surface and ground waters. Under the auspices of the EPA, the Water Boards are responsible for certifying, under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, that activities affecting waters of the United States comply California water quality standards.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act addresses all “waters of the State,” which are more broadly defined than waters of the Unites States. Waters of the State include any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. They include artificial as well as natural water bodies and federally jurisdictional and federally non- jurisdictional waters. The Water Boards may issue Waste Discharge Requirements for projects that will affect only federally non-jurisdictional waters of the State.

147

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
10 2.0 Methods

2.1 Desktop Review

We obtained a USFWS species list for the Project site as a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey (USFWS 2022a, Appendix A). In addition, we searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; CDFW 2022, Appendix B ) and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022, Appendix C ) for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database searches confined to the Sanger 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, which encompasses the Project site , and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Clovis, Round Mountain, Piedra, Malaga, Wahtoke, Conejo, Selma, and Reedley). A l ocal list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lack a CEQA-recognized special-status designation by federal or state regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. We also reviewed satellite imagery from Google Earth (Google 2022) and other sources, USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2022), the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022b), the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (USFWS 2022c), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2022) flood maps, and relevant literature.

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey

Colibri Senior Scientist Joshua Reece conducted a field reconnaissance survey of the Project site, including the preferred and alternate well installation sites, on 19 August 2022. The Project site and a 50-foot buffer surrounding the Project site were walked and thoroughly inspected to evaluate and document the potential for the area to support state- or federally protected resources. The survey area also included a 0.5-mile buffer around the Project site to evaluate the potential occurrence of nesting special-status raptors (Figures 4 and 5). The 0.5 -mile buffer was surveyed by driving public roads and identifying the presence of large trees or other potentially suitable substrates for nesting raptors as well as open areas that could provide foraging habitat. The main survey area, including the Project site and surrounding 50-foot buffer, was evaluated for the presence of regulated habitats, including lakes, streams, and other waters using methods described in the Wetlands Delineation Manual and regional supplement (USACE 1987, 2008) and as defined by the CDFW (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa) and under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. All plants except those planted for cultivation or landscaping and all animals (vertebrate wildlife species) observed in the survey area were identified and documented.

148

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
11 Figure 4. Reconnaissance survey area map showing the preferred well installation site.

149

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
12 Figure 5. Reconnaissance survey area map showing the alternate well installation site.

150

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
13 2.3 Effects Analysis and Significance Criteria

2.3.1 Effects Analysis

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of the Project on special-status species included the (1) presence of designated or proposed critical habitat in the survey area, (2) potential for the survey area to support special-status species, (3) dependence of any such species on specific habitat components that would be removed or modified, (4) the degree of effects to the habitat, (5) abundance and distribution of the habitat in the region, (6) distribution and population levels of the species, (7) cumulative effects of the Project and any future activities in the area, and (8) the potential to mitigate any adverse effects.

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of the Project on bald eagle, golden eagle, and migratory birds included the potential for the Project to result in (1) mortality of eagles or migratory birds or (2) loss of their nests containing viable eggs or nestlings.

Factors considered in evaluating the effects of the Project on regulated habitats included the (1) presence of features comprising or potentially comprising waters of the United States, waters of the State, Wild and Scenic Rivers, EFH, floodplains, and lakes or streams within the survey area, and (2) potential for the Project to affect such habitats.

2.3.2 Significance Criteria

CEQA defines "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment" (Pub. Res. Code § 21068). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a Project's effects on biological resources are deemed significant where the Project would do the following:

a) Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, b) Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, c) Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or d) Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

In addition to the Section 15065 criteria, Appendix G within the CEQA Guidelines includes six additional impacts to consider when analyzing the effects of a project. Under Appendix G, a project's effects on biological resources are deemed significant where the project would do any of the following:

e) 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 CDFW or USFWS;

151

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
14 f) 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 CDFW or USFWS;

g) 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;

h) 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;

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

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

These criteria were used to determine whether the potential effects of the Project on biological resources qualify as significant.

152

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
15 3.0 Results

3.1 Desktop Review

The USFWS species lists for the Project site included nine species at the preferred site and eight species at the alternate site that were listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA (USFWS 2022a, Table 1, Appendix A). None of those species could occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, or (3) the presence of development that would otherwise preclude occurrence (Table 1). As identified in the species list, the Project site does not occur in USFWS-designated or proposed critical habitat for any species (USFWS 2022a, Appendix A).

Searching the CNDDB for records of special-status species from the Sanger 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles produced 154 records of 42 species (Table 1, Appendix B). Of those 42 species, 11 were not considered further because they are not CEQA-recognized as special-status species by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups (Appendix B). Of the remaining 31 species, 12 are known from within 5 miles of the Project site (Table 1, Figure 6). Of those species none could occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, or (3) the presence of development that would otherwise preclude occurrence (Table 1).

Searching the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California yielded 15 taxa (CNPS 2022, Appendix C), all which have a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B or 2B (Table 1). None of those species are expected to occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, or (3) lack of detection during the 19 August 2022 field survey (Table 1).

The preferred well installation site is underlain by Hanford sandy loam (85.0%) with 0 to 1 percent slopes. The alternate well installation site is underlain by Exeter sandy loam (85%) with 0 to 1 percent slopes. The Project site is at an elevation of 356–377 feet above mean sea level (Google 2022).

153

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
16 Table 1. Special-status species, their listing status, habitats, and potential to occur on or near the Project site.

Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Federally and State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)

FE, SE,
1B.1
Flats, slopes, generally
in non-alkaline
grassland at 230–3280
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked
grasslands.

Greene’s tuctoria3
(Tuctoria greenei)

FE, SR,
1B.1
Vernal pools below
3500 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked vernal
pools.

Keck’s checkerbloom
(Sidalcea keckii)
FE, 1B.1 Grassy slopes at 245–
2200 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked grassy
slopes.

San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)

FT, SE,
1B.1
Grassland, bare dark
clay at 300–3000 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked
grasslands and clay soils.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)

FT, SE,
1B.1
Vernal pools at or
below 2700 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked vernal
pools.

Succulent owl’s clover
(Castilleja campestris subsp.
succulenta)

FT, SE,
1B.2
Vernal pools with
heavy clay soils below
2500 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked vernal
pools and clay soils.

Monarch California
overwintering population
(Danaus plexippus)
FC Groves of trees within

1.5 miles of the ocean
that produce suitable
micro-climates for
overwintering such as
high humidity,
dappled sunlight,
access to water and
nectar, and protection
from wind.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is not within

1.5 miles of the ocean.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle3
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT Elderberry (Sambucus
spp.) plants having
basal stem diameter
greater than 1” at
ground level.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside the
currently recognized range
of this species; no
elderberry plants were
found on the Project site.
154

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
17 Vernal pool fairy shrimp3
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Vernal pools; some
artificial depressions,
stock ponds, vernal
swales, ephemeral
drainages, and
seasonal wetlands.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools or other
potentially suitable aquatic
features were found on
the Project site.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus)
FT, SE River channels and
tidally influenced
sloughs.

None. Habitat lacking; no
connectivity to the aquatic
habitat this species
requires.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, ST Vernal pools or
seasonal ponds for
breeding; small
mammal burrows for
upland refugia in
natural grasslands.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked the
aquatic features and small
mammal burrows this
species requires.

Foothill yellow-legged frog3
(Rana boylii)
SE, SSSC Perennial streams and
rivers with rocky
substrates, and with
open, sunny banks
may be in forests,
chaparral, or
woodlands.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked the
aquatic habitat this species
requires.

Least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE, SE Riparian forest with
dense understory
below 650 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked riparian
forest.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
ST Large trees for nesting
with adjacent
grasslands, alfalfa
fields, or grain fields
for foraging.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area included large
trees but lacked adjacent
foraging habitat.

Tricolored blackbird3
(Agelaius tricolor)
ST, SSSC Freshwater emergent
wetlands, some
agricultural fields,
grassland, and silage
fields near dairies.

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable aquatic resources
or agricultural lands in the
survey area.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo3
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, SE Open woodlands with
dense, low vegetation
along waterways.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development and was not
adjacent to waterways.
155

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
18 Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, SE,
FP
Upland scrub and
sparsely vegetated
grassland with small
mammal burrows.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis)
FE, SE Sandy, alkaline, saline,
and clay-based soils in
upland scrub and
grassland.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

San Joaquin kit fox3
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, ST Grassland and upland
scrub and fallowed
agricultural lands
adjacent to natural
grasslands or upland
scrub.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

State Species of Special Concern
California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
SSSC Arid scrub, rocky
washes, grasslands,
chapparal.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
SSSC Open, generally sandy
areas, washes, and
flood plains in a
variety of habitats.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

Northern California legless
lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
SSSC Moist warm loose soil
with plant cover in
beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, sandy
areas and stream
terraces.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

Northwestern pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
SSSC Ponds, rivers,
marshes, streams, and
irrigation ditches,
usually with aquatic
vegetation and woody
None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area lacked the
aquatic habitat and
suitable upland areas this
species requires.
156

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
19 debris for basking and
adjacent natural
upland areas for egg
laying.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
SSSC Open areas with
sandy or gravelly soil
that allow rain pools
to gather for
breeding.

None. Habitat lacking; no
rain pools or other
ephemeral water bodies
were found on the Project
site.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
SSSC Grassland and upland
scrub with friable soil;
some agricultural or
other developed and
disturbed areas with
ground squirrel
burrows.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of a
leveled hard-packed lot
under active construction
and an orchard and lacked
ground squirrel burrows.

American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
SSSC Variable. Open, dry
areas with friable soils
and small mammal
populations in
grassland, conifer
forest, and desert.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
orchard and residential
areas surrounded by
agricultural and urban
development.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
SSSC Arid or semi-arid
locations in rocky
areas and sparsely
vegetated grassland
near water. Rock
crevices, caves, mine
shafts, bridges,
building, and tree
hollows for roosting.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked both
foraging and roosting
habitat.

California Rare Plants
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
1B.1 Vernal pools and wet
saline flats below 320
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked vernal
pools and wet saline flats.

Arizona pholistoma
(Pholistoma auritum var.
arizonicum)
2B.3 Desert scrub at 980–
2300 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside of
the known elevational
range of this species.

Bristly sedge3
(Carex comosa)
2B.1 Wet places below
1200 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked the wet
areas this species requires.
157

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
20 California satintail3
(Imperata brevifolia)
2B.1 Moist to wet sites in
arid desert canyons,
or rocky slopes, near
seeps, springs, and
streams below 1700
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked desert
canyons or rocky slopes
near wet areas.

Forked hare-leaf
(Lagophylla dichotoma)
1B.1 Grasslands and
openings in woodland
at 150–1200 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked
grasslands and woodlands.

Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon serrulatus)
1B.2 Openings in chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, and low
elevation conifer
forest at 980–4300
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside of
the known elevational
range of this species.

Sanford’s arrowhead3
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
1B.2 Ponds and ditches at
sea level to 650 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked the
wetland habitat this
species requires.

Spiny-sepaled button-
celery3
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
1B.2 Vernal pools, swales,
and roadside ditches
in valley and foothill
grassland at 328–4166
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked the
wetland habitat this
species requires.

Winter’s sunflower3
(Helianthus winteri)
1B.2 Steep, south-facing
grassy slopes, rock
outcrops, and road
cuts at 590–1509 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site lacked steep
slopes, outcrops, and road
cuts.

CDFW (2022), CNPS (2022), USFWS (2022a).

158

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
21 Status1 Potential to Occur2
FC = Federal Candidate for Listing None: Species or sign not observed; conditions unsuitable for occurrence.

FE = Federally listed Endangered Low: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions marginal for occurrence.

FT = Federally listed Threatened Moderate:

Neither species nor sign observed; conditions
suitable for occurrence.

FP = State Fully Protected

High: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions
highly suitable for occurrence.

SE = State listed Endangered Present: Species or sign observed; conditions suitable for occurrence.

SR = State listed Rare
ST = State listed Threatened
SSSC = State Species of Special Concern

CNPS California Rare Plant Rank 1: Threat Ranks1:

1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

0.1 – seriously threatened in California (> 80% of occurrences). 2B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

0.2 – moderately threatened in California (20 -80% of occurrences). 3 – plants about which more information is needed. 0.3 – not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences). 4 – plants have limited distribution in California.
3Record from within 5 miles of the Project site.
159

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
22 Figure 6. CNDDB occurrence map.

160

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
23 3.2 Reconnaissance Survey

3.2.1 Land Use and Habitats

The preferred well installation site comprised approximately 0.2 acres in an active construction area of hardpacked, levelled, and contoured bare ground (Figure 7), bordered by an almond orchard to the south (Figure 8), dense residential development to the east, and an active construction site to the north and west (Figure 2). The alternate well installation site comprised approximately 2 acres in a citrus orchard (Figure 9), surrounded by citrus orchards to the north and west (Figure 3) and rural urban development to the south and east (Figures 3 and 10).

Figure 7. Photograph of the preferred well installation site , showing surrounding active construction site and levelled and contoured bare ground.

161

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
24 Figure 8. Photograph of the preferred well installation site, showing levelled bare ground at the site and almond orchard to the south.

Figure 9. Photograph of the alternate well installation site, showing a citrus orchard.

162

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
25 Figure 10. Photograph of the alternate well installation site, showing a citrus orchard and bordering roads and rural urban development.

3.2.2 Plant and Animal Species Observed

A total of 10 plant species (three native and seven nonnative) and five bird species were observed during the survey (Table 2).

Table 2. Plant and animal species observed during the reconnaissance survey.

Common Name Scientific Name Status
Plants
Family Amaranthaceae
Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Native
Family Asteraceae
Flax-leaved horseweed Erigeron bonariensis Nonnative
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Nonnative
Family Brassicaceae
black mustard Brassica nigra Nonnative
Family Chenopodiaceae
Lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album Nonnative
Russian thistle Salsola tragus Nonnative
Family Poaceae
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Nonnative
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Native
163

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
26 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Solanaceae
Jimsonweed Datura wrightii Native
Family Zygophyllaceae
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Nonnative
Birds
Family Columbidae
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia orientalis Nonnative Family Corvidae
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA, CFGC
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica MBTA, CFGC
Family Mimidae
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos MBTA, CFGC
Family Passeridae
House sparrow Passer domesticus Nonnative
MBTA = Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.); CFGC = Protected under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC §§ 3503 and 3513).

3.2.3 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle

The Project site and surrounding 0.5-mile buffer (Figure 3) lacked foraging and nesting habitat for bald eagle and golden eagle.

3.2.4 Nesting Birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Migratory birds could nest on or near the Project site. Bird species that may nest on or near the property include, but are not limited to, northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos). Large trees within 0.5 miles of the Project site could provide nesting substrates for raptors.

3.2.5 Regulated Habitats

No habitats regulated under jurisdiction of the CDFW, SWRCB, or USACE were present in the survey area. The nearest river, the Kings River, is about 2.5 miles east of the Project site.

According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the nearest section of the Kings River designated as a wild and scenic reach is approximately 34 miles east of the Project site (USFWS 2022a).

The Project site is not within a flood plain (FEMA 2022). The nearest flood plain limit is approximately 1.7 miles east, associated with the Kings River and Collins Creek.

164

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
27 3.3 Special-Status Species

No special-status species are expected on or near the Project site due to (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of such species, (3) the presence of development that would otherwise preclude occurrence , or lack of detection during the 19 August 2022 field survey.

165

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
28 4.0 Environmental Effects

4.1 Effects Determinations

4.1.1 Critical Habitat

We conclude the Project will have no effect on critical habitat as no critical habitat has been designated or proposed in the survey area.

4.1.2 Special-Status Species

We conclude the Project will have no effect on any special-status species due to the lack of habitat or known occurrence records for those species near the Project site.

4.1.3 Migratory Birds

We conclude the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect nesting migratory birds.

4.1.4 Regulated Habitats

We conclude the Project will have no effect on regulated habitats due the lack of such habitats in the survey area.

4.2 Significance Determinations

This Project, which will result in temporary impacts to urban and disturbed land, will not: (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species (criterion a) as no such habitat is present on the Project site; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels (criterion b) as no such potentially vulnerable population is known from the area; (3) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community (criterion c) as no such potentially vulnerable communities are known from the area; (4) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal (criterion d) as no such potentially vulnerable species are known from the area; (5) 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 CDFW or USFWS (significance criterion e) as no such special-status species were likely to occur on the Project site; (6) 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 CDFW or USFWS (criterion f) as no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was present in the survey area; (7) 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 166

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
29 means (criterion g) as no impacts to wetlands will occur; (8) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (criterion i) as no applicable trees or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted; or (9) conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (criterion j) as no such plan has been adopted. Thus, these significance criteria are not analyzed further.

The remaining statutorily defined criterion provided the framework for Criterion BIO1 below. This criterion was used to assess the impacts to biological resources stemming from the Project and provide the basis for determinations of significance:

§ Criterion BIO1: 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 (significance criterion h).

4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects

4.2.1.1 Potential Effect #1: Interfere Substantially with Native Wildlife Movements, Corridors, or Nursery Sites (Criterion BIO1)

The Project has the potential to impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the MBTA. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site .

Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA.

Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird in the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant effect. We recommend that the mitigation measure BIO1 (below) be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential effect to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO1. Protect nesting birds.

1. To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

2. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre- construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the 167

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
30 extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects
The Project will involve installing a well on either a 0.2-acre site (the preferred site) or on a 2- acre site (the alternative site). Although all land adjacent to the Project site was previously disturbed by commercial, residential, or agricultural development, the Project site provides potential nesting habitat for migratory birds. However, implementing Mitigation Measure BIO1 would reduce any contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources to a less-than- significant level.

4.2.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects

No unavoidable significant adverse effects on biological resources would occur from implementing the Project.
168

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
31 5.0 Literature Cited

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov. Accessed 29 July 2022.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program (CNPS ). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed 29 July 2022.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Map Numbers 06019C2160H and 06019C2155H, Tuolumne County, California. National Flood Insurance Program. Map revised 18 February 2009 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/. Accessed 19 August 2022.

Google. 2022. Google Earth Pro. Version 7.3.2.5776 (https://www.google.com/earth/download/ gep/agree.html). Accessed 19 August 2022.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022. Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed 19 August 2022.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.

________. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046489.pdf. Accessed 19 August 2022.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum:

Destruction and Relocation of Migratory Bird Nest Contents. FWS/DMBM/AMB/068029, 4 pages.

________. 2022a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Conservation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Accessed 19 August 2022.

________. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed 19 August 2022.

________. 2022c. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. https://www.rivers.gov /california.php. Accessed 19 August 2022.

169

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
32 Appendix A. USFWS lists of threatened and endangered species.

170
August 19, 2022
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2022-0076638
Project Name: Sanger Water Well Project - Preferred Site

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 171
08/19/2022   2

(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
172
08/19/2022   3

▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List
173
08/19/2022   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
174
08/19/2022   2

Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0076638
Project Name: Sanger Water Well Project - Preferred Site Project Type: Water Supply Facility - Withdrawal - Groundwater Project Description: Colibri Ecological proposes to assist Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. by conducting a biological resource evaluation for the City of Sanger in support of a project to install a new water well (the Project) in Sanger, Fresno County, California.

The Project will involve installing the well on either a 0.2-acre site west of S Greenwood Avenue and south of E North Avenue (the preferred site) or on a roughly 2-acre site west of S Academy Avenue between the E Woods Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (the alternate site).

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps:
https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.688828799999996,-119.56569009027552,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
175
08/19/2022   3

1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals
NAME
STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Birds

NAME STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened
Reptiles

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
1 176
08/19/2022   4

Amphibians

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Fishes

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
Insects

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered
Critical habitats

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
177
08/19/2022   5

IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC
Name: Josh Reece
Address: 9493 N Ft Washington Rd Ste 108
City: Fresno
State: CA
Zip: 93730
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5595004458
178
August 19, 2022
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2022-0076643
Project Name: Sanger Water Well Project - Alternative Site

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 179
08/19/2022   2

(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
180
08/19/2022   3

▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List
181
08/19/2022   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
182
08/19/2022   2

Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0076643
Project Name: Sanger Water Well Project - Alternative Site Project Type: Water Supply Facility - Withdrawal - Groundwater Project Description: Colibri Ecological proposes to assist Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. by conducting a biological resource evaluation for the City of Sanger in support of a project to install a new water well (the Project) in Sanger, Fresno County, California.

The Project will involve installing the well on either a 0.2-acre site west of S Greenwood Avenue and south of E North Avenue (the preferred site) or on a roughly 2-acre site west of S Academy Avenue between the E Woods Avenue alignment and State Route 180 (the alternate site).

Project Location:

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps:
https://
www.google.com/maps/@36.7307803,-119.55709845,14z
Counties: Fresno County, California
183
08/19/2022   3

1. Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals
NAME
STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Birds

NAME STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
1 184
08/19/2022   4

Fishes

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
Insects

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered
Critical habitats

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
185
08/19/2022   5

IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: Colibri Ecological Consulting LLC
Name: Josh Reece
Address: 9493 N Ft Washington Rd Ste 108
City: Fresno
State: CA
Zip: 93730
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5595004458
186

Biological Resource Evaluation Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC Sanger Water Well Project September 2022
49 Appendix B. CNDDB occurrence records.
187
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.

Extirp. Extirp.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
G1G2
S1S2
None
Threatened
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_EN-Endangered
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
0 460
955
S:6
0 0 0 0 1 5 5 1 5 1 0
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central
California DPS
G2G3T3
S3
Threatened
Threatened
CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
300
702
1265
S:17
2 4 0 0 3 8 8 9 14 0 3
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
G3
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
300
300
383
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
G4
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
WBWG_H-High
Priority
300
300
420
S:1
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
G5T2
S2
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
300
300
260
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
G4
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
325
500
2011
S:4
0 1 0 0 0 3 2 2 4 0 0
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
G2
S1S2
None
None
300
600
437
S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Clovis (3611976)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Round Mountain (3611975)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Piedra (3611974)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Wahtoke (3611964)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reedley (3611954))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Fish<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Amphibians<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reptiles<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Birds<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mammals<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mollusks<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Arachnids<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Crustaceans<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Insects<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Ferns<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gymnosperms<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monocots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Dicots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lichens<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Bryophytes) Report Printed on Friday, July 29, 2022