REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JENNIFER CLARK, Director
Planning & Development Department
BY: ROB HOLT, Supervising Planner
Planning & Development Department
SUBJECT
Title
HEARING to consider Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 pertaining to approximately 8.0 acres of property located on the east side of North Abby Street, between East Minarets/East Alluvial and East Spruce Avenues (Council District 6) - Planning & Development Department.
1. DENY the appeal and ADOPT Environmental Assessment P22-04122, dated May 5, 2023, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Body
RECOMMENDATION
1. DENY the appeal and ADOPT Environmental Assessment P22-04122, dated May 5, 2023, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brian Saltikov of Living Spaces has filed Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 pertaining to an approximately 8-acre parcel located on the east side of North Abby Street, between East Alluvial/East Minarets and East Spruce Avenues (Exhibit A).
Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 proposes the construction of an approximately 104,867 square-foot furniture showroom with on- and off-site improvements including but not limited to parking, landscaping, and sidewalks.
The proposed project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and determined to be a “project”. However, it was determined that the project was not exempt from CEQA as it did not qualify for a Statutory or Categorical Exemption. Therefore, an initial study was prepared which determined the project would not result in significant impacts on the environmental with the incorporation of applicable mitigation measures. As such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 5, 2023 was prepared.
The project and environmental assessment were approved and adopted by the Director on July 24, 2023. The Director’s decision to approve the project and adopt the environmental assessment were appealed on August 8, 2023 (Exhibit C).
Pursuant to FMC Section 15-5017(A)(1), appeals of Director’s decisions shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. However, under FMC Sections 15-5017(A)(3) and 15-5005(A), appeals of an environmental determination shall be referred directly to the City Council. Therefore, the Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 was considered by the Planning Commission and the related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 shall be considered by the City Council.
The Planning Commission considered Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 and Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 as presented by staff in accordance with FMC Section 15-5017 at the hearing held on October 4, 2023. Various members of the public spoke on the project during the hearings. After close of the hearing on October 4, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 and deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to approve Development Permit Application No. P22-04122, with five votes in favor to zero votes against, one member absent and one member recusing (Exhibit L).
No appeals were received following Planning Commission’s action and recommendation. Therefore, the City Council is only considering the environmental assessment pursuant to FMC Sections 15-5017 and 15-5005, which require a City Council Hearing and Action to consider the appeal of Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122.
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the environmental determination and adopt Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Fresno General Plan and Woodward Park Community Plan. These plans designate the approximately 8-acre property for Commercial - Regional planned land uses. The existing underlying CR (Commercial - Regional) zone district is consistent with the Commercial - Regional planned land use designation. The surrounding land uses to the north and south are planned and zoned for Commercial - Regional uses. Properties to the west are planned and zoned for Corridor/Center Mixed Use uses. A Kohl’s department store is located directly north of the subject property, the Costco shopping center and Home Depot is located directly south of the subject property, various automotive repair and retail stores and one single-family residence are located directly west of the subject property (separated by North Abby Street), and State Route 41 is located directly east of the subject property. The property was previously developed as a family entertainment park (Boomers), has since been demolished in 2017, and is currently disturbed vacant land.
Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 proposes the construction of an approximately 104,867 square-foot furniture showroom with on- and off-site improvements including but not limited to parking, landscaping, and sidewalks. Additional information is provided in the attached operational statement and exhibits (Exhibit E).
The proposed project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and determined to be a “project”. As a project, the proposed activity is subject to CEQA review.
Pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, it was further determined the project did not qualify for a Statutory Exemption (Article 18 of CEQA), Categorical Exemption (Article 19 of CEQA), Common Sense Exemption, or exemptions for qualifying agricultural housing, affordable housing, and residential infill projects. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was conducted to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
As described in more detail in the Environmental Findings section below, the proposed project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019050005 (“PEIR”) as provided by the CEQA, as codified in the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21157.1(d) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15177(c). Furthermore, it was determined that all applicable mitigation measures of the PEIR have been applied to the project, together with project specific mitigation measures, as necessary to assure that the project will not cause significant adverse cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and irreversible significant effects beyond those identified by the PEIR as provided by CEQA Section 15178(a). As such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 5, 2023 was prepared for the proposed project.
ANALYSIS
Land Use and Zoning
The Fresno General Plan and Woodward Park Community Plan designate the 8-acre property for Commercial - Regional planned land uses. Furthermore, the subject property is zoned CR/UGM/cz (Commercial Regional/Urban Growth Management/conditions of zoning). The underlying CR zone district is consistent with the Commercial - Regional planned land use designation.
The Commercial - Regional planned land use designation and CR zone district are intended to meet local and regional retail demand, such as large-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, shopping malls with large-format or "big-box" retail and supporting uses such as gas stations and hotels. Buildings are typically larger-footprint and urban-scaled.
Development and design standards will create a pedestrian-orientation within centers and along major corridors, with parking generally on the side or rear of major buildings, but automobile-oriented uses also will be accommodated on identified streets and frontages. The proposal of an approximately 104,867 square-foot furniture showroom is considered a large-scale retail building and use, consistent with the intent of the Commercial - Regional planned land use designation.
Pursuant to Section 15-1202 of the Fresno Municipal Code (“FMC”), furniture stores may be classified under the “General Retail” use classification definition. However, pursuant to FMC Section 15-6704, this specific classification is limited to establishments with 80,000 square feet or less of sales area. Therefore, the proposed project is more appropriately classified as “Large-Format Retail” which includes retail establishments greater than 80,000 square feet. Per Table 15-1102 of the FMC, Large-Format Retail is permitted in the CR (Commercial - Regional) zone district.
Given the conditions of approval dated June 2, 2023, Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 will meet all the provisions of the FMC, including but not limited to setbacks, screening between different land uses, parking, landscaping, and will comply with all applicable design guidelines and development standards for furniture stores in the CR (Commercial - Regional) zone district.
Traffic and Circulation
The Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the potential traffic related impacts for the proposed project and has determined that the streets adjacent to and near the subject site will be able to accommodate the quantity and kind of traffic which may be potentially generated subject to the standard city requirements for street improvements and subject to the project specific mitigation measures determined applicable by the City of Fresno Traffic Engineer. These requirements generally include: (1) street dedications; (2) Street improvements, (including, but not limited to, construction of concrete curbs, gutters, pavement, underground street lighting systems; and (3) Payment of applicable impact fees (including, but not limited to, the Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Fee, Fresno Major Street Impact (FMSI) Fee, and the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) Fee. These requirements are outlined within the memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer dated December 21, 2022, which are included in the Conditions of Approval dated July 24, 2023.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On June 25, 2020, the City of Fresno adopted CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 to be effective of July 1, 2020. The thresholds described therein are referred to herein as the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds. The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Fresno VMT Thresholds.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
The City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 regarding Project Screening discusses a variety of projects that may be screened out of a VMT analysis including specific development and transportation projects. For development projects, conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential.
The proposed project is eligible to screen out because pursuant to the City of Fresno VMT Thresholds Section 3.0 (Project Screening), the project is within 0.5 miles of a Transit Priority Area or a High-Quality Transit Area, has a floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75 (proposed FAR at 0.31), and provides an excessive amount of parking (proposes 298 parking spaces when 140 is the minimum requirement). Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Public Services
Public Utilities (Sewer, Water, and Solid Waste)
The subject property is located within the Pinedale County Water District service area, and it is anticipated that Pinedale County Water District will provide sewer service and water services (potable water and fire protection) to the proposed development.
The project was reviewed by the Department of Public Utilities to ensure that the proposed trash enclosures for the project comply will any applicable policies related to capacity, access, and overall design to ensure that service can be provided to the site without impacts to the site, surrounding properties, or solid waste service to the city. The requirements listed above, and additional requirements have been listed in the Department of Public Utilities memo dated December 13, 2022.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD)
According to the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (“FMFCD”), the subject site is not located within a flood prone or hazard area. Permanent drainage service is available provided the developer can verify to the satisfaction of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to the Master Plan inlet(s). Drainage from the site shall be directed towards an existing private storm drain system facility.
Fire
The City of Fresno Fire Department reviewed the proposed project and has determined that adequate Fire service will be available subject to compliance with Fire Department comments or conditions of approval related to access and design of proposed project. Review for compliance with fire and life safety requirements for the interior of proposed buildings and the intended use are reviewed by both the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Services Section of the Planning and Development Department when a submittal for building plan review is made as required by the California Building Code.
Other Agencies
All comments received from the applicable agencies have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for Development Permit Application P22-04122. The project will comply with all department comments and conditions and all zoning requirements as incorporated into the conditions of approval dated July 24, 2023.
LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan designates the subject site for Commercial - Regional planned land uses and provides objectives to guide in the development of these projects. Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 meets all policies and objectives of the Fresno General Plan. The following are excerpts of such objectives.
Objective:
LU-6: Retain and enhance existing commercial areas to strengthen Fresno’s economic base and site new office, retail, and lodging use districts to serve neighborhoods and regional visitors.
Implementing Policies:
LU-6-a: Foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities in new development with uses through the consideration of guidelines, consistent with the Urban Form policies of this Plan.
LU-6-e: Promote economic growth with regional commercial centers.
The proposed development will enhance the existing surrounding commercial areas that will continue to strengthen Fresno’s economic base. In addition, the new commercial building façade complies with the FMC and provides a high-quality design.
The subject property is adjacent to an existing shopping center to the south and will connect to the adjacent developed commercial property to the north providing an extension of an existing regional commercial center.
Woodward Park Community Plan
Upon reviewing the policies contained in the Woodward Park Community Plan, staff has determined that there are no policies that are applicable or are more restrictive than those contained in the FMC or the Fresno General Plan.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND INPUT
Council District Project Review Committee
The Council District 6 Project Review Committee reviewed the project at their regular meeting on February 6, 2023 and recommended approval of the project, 7 votes to 0.
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
On May 5, 2023, a public notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Application No. P22-04122 (Exhibit J) was published. One (1) response letter has been received which included several comments and concerns regarding the EA and a request to receive a Notice of Director Action. This response letter was included as an attachment to an appeal of the Notice of Action and EA (Exhibit C) that staff reviewed and analyzed below under “Analysis of the Appeal Letter.”
Notice of Action
On July 24, 2023, the project was approved by the Planning and Development Director and a Notice of Action (Exhibit J) was provided to individuals who previously requested to be notified of the project approval.
On August 8, 2023, one appeal letter was received which included an appeal of the Director’s approval and the environmental determination (Exhibit C). Staff’s review and analysis of the appeal letter is below under “Analysis of the Appeal Letter.”
Notice of Planning Commission Hearing
The Planning and Development Department mailed notices of this Planning Commission hearing to all surrounding property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property on September 22, 2023, pursuant to Section 15-5007 of the FMC (Exhibit F).
Fresno City Planning Commission Action
On October 4, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the item as presented by staff, followed by a brief presentation by the applicant. Various members of the public spoke in support of and opposition to the project during the hearing.
After a complete hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to approve Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 and recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122, with five (5) votes to zero (0), one (1) Commissioner absent and one (1) recusing. The Planning Commission resolution is attached as Exhibit L.
Notice of City Council Hearing
On October 19, 2023, the Planning and Development Department mailed notices of the City Council Hearing to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property in accordance with FMC Section 15-5007 (Exhibit M).
ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL LETTER
One appeal letter was received in response to the Notice of Action issued for this project. Staff was provided a response letter by the environmental consultant (Exhibit D) of the project that analyzed and responded to all claims from the appeal letter, which is summarized below.
(1) Below is an analysis of the issues raised in the appeal letter dated August 8, 2023 (Exhibit C).
Issue #1: The project may result in significant impacts to Biological Resources. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) inadequately characterized the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife. Due to the presence of ground squirrels on the project site, protocol-level surveys should have been performed for burrowing owls and nesting birds and raptors, such as the Swainson’s hawk. Instead, only a single reconnaissance-level survey was conducted on January 19, 2023. This survey was inadequate because the survey of the project site does not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of burrowing owls on the site because the survey was not conducted during the breeding season when the owls may be present (February 1 to August 31, California Department of Fish and Wildlife). The same baseline problem also afflicts the ISMND’s discussion of other nesting bird species of concern on or in the vicinity of the project site, such as the Swainson’s hawk. Because of the absence of detection surveys, the ISMND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Only with an accurate baseline could the ISMND purport to assess the impacts on nesting raptors and other bird species of concern. Accordingly, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR for the project because of the lack of relevant investigation of the site’s biological resources and the possible use of the site by sensitive wildlife species.
Response:
The existing environmental setting was described accurately at the time of the field survey. The Biological Resources Assessment stated that the project site was previously developed as a family entertainment park from approximately 1998 to 2017. In 2017, the park was demolished and cleared where the property has remained in its current condition since. Some lands in the vicinity of the project site are fallow/vacant lots, however most of the lands are developed with a mixture of commercial developments, schools, and residential uses.
There are no undisturbed open spaces in the vicinity of the project site. Because the project is surrounded by development and isolated from open spaces, the site lacks adjacent foraging habitat needed for burrowing owl, therefore limiting the habitat suitability. Additionally, soil and vegetation within the project site are disturbed from the demolition of the park in 2017. Worn foot paths, litter, vehicle tracks, and trampling are evident throughout the project site, making the project site less likely for burrowing owls to utilize. Furthermore, as stated in the Biological Resources Assessment in the ISMND, the perimeter of the project site contains palm and oak trees that could provide suitable perching locations for nesting raptor species, thereby making the site less suitable for burrowing owl. Lastly, CNDDB and eBird records of burrowing owl were also checked to inform the survey and habitat suitability. No records of burrowing owl have been documented within the project site or the immediate surroundings. Similarly, the rationale regarding the site conditions documented and described above is applicable to Swainson’s hawk. Tree-nesting habitat for this species is absent within the project site because the trees present are immature and small in stature and do not provide conductive nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk or other raptor species. Therefore, the baseline conditions of the project site accurately reflect that the foraging habitat is marginal and nesting is not expected for Swainson’s hawk. Protocol level surveys are not warranted given the conditions described above.
Issue #2: The pre-construction surveys identified in the ISMND for burrowing owls and nesting birds are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds that may be present on the project site. The mitigation measures for burrowing owl surveys and pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds, including burrowing owls and nesting raptors. Instead, detection surveys need to be performed to professional standards because detection surveys provide the bases for impact assessments and formulation of mitigation measures. Detection surveys also inform pre-construction surveys. By failing to determine the actual baseline of burrowing owls and other nesting-bird species’ reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging, and instead waiting until 5 to 30 days before construction to determine what roosts, nests, and birds may suffer impacts from the project, the ISMND fails to evaluate and mitigate the project’s potential significant impacts to special-status bird species.
Response:
The mitigation measures outlining the pre-construction surveys adequately address and avoid potential adverse impacts to these species and would mitigate for any potential impacts if the species were found within the project site. Furthermore, the pre-construction measure and timing for the burrowing owl survey is a standard timeline that is recognized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and is described in the CDFW Burrowing Owl Survey and Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Additionally, the measure states if burrowing owls are present, specific avoidance, den excavation, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation activities shall be performed as required by the CDFW, which would avoid or mitigate impacts to this species.
Therefore, pre-construction surveys would avoid and mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk and other nesting birds.
Issue #3: The ISMND’s analysis of Energy impacts is conclusory and fails to provide substantial evidence that the project’s energy impacts are less than significant. The standard under CEQA is whether the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project violates CEQA. Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy,” which is achieved by decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy resources. Noting compliance with the California Appliance Efficiency Regulations and reliance on Title 20’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy and does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the project’s energy impacts. There is no discussion of the project’s cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no adequate discussion of energy consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the project. The project’s energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for building maintenance were also not identified. The ISMND attempts to satisfy the analysis of energy impacts by estimating the project’s percentage of energy use compared to energy and fuel use for the entirety of Fresno County. CEQA prohibits this type of “drop in the bucket” analysis. Additionally, the effect of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. The agency has to implement all feasible energy mitigation measures unless it has substantial evidence to show that the proposed measures are infeasible. An example would be a recently adopted new ordinance in San Francisco requires 100 percent of parking spaces have electric vehicle charging stations. The project proposes only 30 EV charging stations of the proposed 298 parking spaces. In conclusion, because the ISMND failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the project’s potentially wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, an EIR should be prepared to address the project’s potential significant energy impacts and mitigate those impacts accordingly.
Response:
As discussed in the Energy impacts section of the ISMND, thresholds for impacts related to energy used in the analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would increase the demand for energy through day-to-day operations and fuel consumption associated with project construction. During project construction, petroleum fuels would be the primary sources of energy for construction activities. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an efficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the proposed project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources.
Energy consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project. Energy and natural gas consumption was estimated for the proposed project using default energy intensities by land use type in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Based on the operational energy consumption estimates shown in the ISMND, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Fresno County by approximately 0.1 percent and increase the annual natural gas consumption in Fresno Couty by less than 0.1 percent. Furthermore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Fresno County by less than 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and diesel fuel usage. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. Also as discussed in the ISMND, PG&E is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity and natural gas services. The ISMND properly determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to energy. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures is not required.
Issue #4: The ISMND fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate health risks from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the significant health impacts to individuals and workers from the project’s operational and construction related DPM. The ISMND incorrectly concluded that the project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (HRA). Given the proximity of the project to single-family residences within 65 feet of the project site and Pinedale Elementary School within 1,000 feet of the project site, construction and operational HRAs need to be prepared to determine the potential significant health risk impacts to families, students, and teachers from DPM emissions related to the project. Failing to prepare an HRA, the project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Also failing to prepare an HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the ISMND fails to compare the excess health risk impact of the project to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Without conducting an HRA, the ISMND also fails to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors from the project’s construction and operation together. The ISMND relies on inadequate mitigation to support is conclusion that the project will result in less-than-significant health risk impacts from construction related emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 only requires certain controls consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) to be included as specifications for the project and implemented at the construction site. The ISMND should also require construction equipment used at the project site to meet Tier 4 final emissions standards to reduce construction related emissions as well as the adverse health risk impacts of those emissions on nearby sensitive receptors.
Response:
The SJVAPCD’s Update to the District’s Risk Management Policy to Address the OEHHA Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if an HRS shows an increased risk of greater than 20 in 1 million. The OEHHA Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. In addition, CARB has also identified DPM emitted by off-road, diesel-fueled engines emit DPM as a TAC. As such, the TAC of concern would be DPM associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction and operation. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM. HRA analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. As shown in the ISMND, PM10 emissions, which are a surrogate for TAC emissions during construction, would be 0.2 tons per year, which is well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 15.0 tons per year, indicating that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur and a significant health risk would also not occur. Additionally, once operational, the proposed project would result in PM10 emissions of 0.1 tons per year, which is also well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 15.0 tons per year, indicating that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur and a significant health risk would also not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
An environmental assessment initial study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations.
Preparation of the environmental assessment necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies pertinent to the Woodward Park Community Plan area, including the Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019050005 (“PEIR”). These environmental and technical studies have examined projected sewage generation rates of planned urban uses, the capacity of existing sanitary sewer collection and treatment facilities, and optimum alternatives for increasing capacities; groundwater aquifer resource conditions; water supply production and distribution system capacities; traffic carrying capacity of the planned major street system.
The proposed project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the PEIR as provided by the CEQA, as codified in the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21157.1(d) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15177(c). Therefore, the Planning and Development Department proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, which is tiered off the PEIR.
It has been further determined that all applicable mitigation measures of the PEIR have been applied to the project, together with project specific mitigation measures, as necessary to assure that the project will not cause significant adverse cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and irreversible significant effects beyond those identified by the PEIR as provided by CEQA Section 15178(a). In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21157.6(b)(1), staff has determined that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the PEIR was certified and that no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the PEIR was certified as complete, has become available. Therefore, it has been determined based upon the evidence in the record that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and that the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21157.5(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15178(b)(1) and (2).
Based upon the attached environmental assessment and applicable mitigation measures, staff has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. A public notice of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Application No. P22-04122 (Exhibit I) was published in the Fresno Bee on May 5, 2023.
LOCAL PREFERENCE
Local preference was not considered because the project does not include a bid or award of a construction or service contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Affirmative action by the City Council will result in timely deliverance of the review and processing of the applications as is reasonably expected by the applicant. Prudent financial management is demonstrated by the expeditious completion of this land use application and that fee is, in turn, funding the respective operations of the Planning and Development Department.
CONCLUSION
The appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined for its consistency with the goals and policies of the Woodward Park Community Plan and Fresno General Plan; its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and its avoidance or mitigation of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. These factors have been evaluated as described above and by the accompanying environmental assessment. Upon consideration of this evaluation, it can be concluded that the proposed Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 is appropriate for the subject property.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map
Exhibit B - General Plan Land Use & Zoning Map
Exhibit C - Appeal Letter [8-8-2023]
Exhibit D - Response to Appeal Letter [6-15-2023]
Exhibit E - Exhibits
Exhibit F - Fresno Municipal Code Findings
Exhibit G - Public Hearing Notice Radius Map (1,000 feet)
Exhibit H - Conditions of Approval [7-24-2023]
Exhibit I - Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 [5-5-2023]
Exhibit J - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration [5-5-2023]
Exhibit K - Notice of Action [7-23-2023]
Exhibit L - Planning Commission Resolution No. 13812
Exhibit M - City Council Public Hearing Notice & Noticing Map (1,000 feet)
Exhibit N - Letter from Appellant [10-16-2023]
Exhibit O - PowerPoint Presentation