Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Indianola Subdivision Project City of Sanger, Fresno County, California

Transcription

1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Indianola Subdivision Project City of Sanger, Fresno County, California Prepared for: City of Sanger th Street Sanger, CA Contact: Keith Woodcock, Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 7265 N First Street, Suite 101 Fresno, CA Contact: Janna Waligorski, Project Director Mary Bean, Project Manager Report Date: March 24,

2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 City of Sanger - Indianolaa Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Responses to Written Comments List of Authors State Agencies Local Agencies Responses to Comments Introduction Comment Letters and Responses State Agencies California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Agencies San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec00-01 TOC.docx i

4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5 City of Sanger - Indianolaa Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Sanger has evaluated the comments received on the Indianola Subdivision Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND). The Responsess to Comments, which are included in this document, together with the Draft IS/MND, Draft IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, comprise the Final IS/MND for use by the City of Sanger in its review and consideration of the Indianola Subdivision Project. This document is organized into three sections: Section 1 - Introduction. Section 2 - Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies and organizations that commented on the Draft IS/MND. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft IS/MND and responses thereto are included in thiss section. The Final IS/MND includes the following contents: Draft IS/MND (provided under separate cover) Draft IS/MND appendices (provided under separatee cover) Responses to Written Comments (Section 2) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec01-00 Introduction.docx 1-1

6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7 City of Sanger - Indianola Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS List of Authors A list of public agencies and organizations that provided comments on the Draft IS/MND is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Author State Agencies Author Code California Department of Transportation... Caltrans Local Agencies San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District... SJVAPCD Responses to Comments Introduction Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Sanger, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Final IS/MND for the Indianola Subdivision Project and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final IS/MND for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section Comment Letters and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx

8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT WEST OLIVE AVENUE P.O. BOX FRESNO, CA PHONE (559) FAX (559) TTY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor Serious drought. Help save water! March 5, 2015 Mr. Keith Woodcock City of Sanger 1700 Seventh Street Sanger, California IGR/CEQA 6-FRE /- Indianola Subdivision Project SCH Dear Mr. Woodcock: We have reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subdivision into 312 lots for the development of single-family residences with average lot sizes ranging from 6,678 to 7,344 square feet and a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Access to the subdivision will be provided from the current terminus at Annadale Avenue south to North Avenue to the north. Indianola Avenue would be extended from its current terminus at Annadale Avenue south to North Avenue and provide two points of site access from the extended roadway. The project is located in the City of Sanger which is approximately 16 miles east of the City of Fresno. The likely commute pattern will be via Jensen Avenue and State Route (SR) 180. Caltrans has the following comments: It is projected that trips generated from this site would primarily access major urban job centers using either SR 180 at the intersections of SR 180/McCall Avenue or SR 180/Bethel Avenue. It is estimated that this development would generate approximately 312 trips during the P.M. peak travel period thus having a significant impact to these intersections. The Caltrans project to upgrade SR 180 from a two-lane conventional highway to a four-lane expressway in this area was completed in According to the current Caltrans Transportation Concept Report, SR 180 east of Temperance Avenue is designated as a 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections. However, based upon anticipated future development plans, Caltrans has begun preparing interchange footprints along this corridor. SR 180 at McCall Avenue would be a location that would ultimately need an interchange once the at-grade intersection could not accommodate the traffic demand any longer, or when there are safety and operational problems in the future. Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California s economy and livability

10 Mr. Keith Woodcock March 5, 2015 Page 2 Prior to an interchange on SR 180 at McCall Avenue being constructed, interim improvements to the at-grade intersection of SR 180 and McCall Avenue have been identified. The interim improvements would include dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and one right-turn lane in for eastbound and westbound SR 180. Northbound McCall Avenue would require dual left-turn lanes, one through lane, one right-turn lane, and the southbound direction would require one left, one through and one right-turn lane. Right-of-way dedication along the Project frontage on McCall Avenue may be required to accommodate this interim improvement as well. Caltrans is currently collecting a fair-share contribution towards the interim improvements, therefore the Project should contribute towards its impacts. It is anticipated that the project will pay into the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF), however SR 180 at McCall Avenue is not included its Expenditure Plan. It should be noted that Caltrans was not given the opportunity to review the traffic impact study referred to in this application. Caltrans request that the City include us in the review of any and all traffic impact studies with the potential to impact State facilities. Caltrans would appreciate a response to our comments prior to any action taking place on this project. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (559) Sincerely, DAVID PADILLA Associate Transportation Planner Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California s economy and livability

11 City of Sanger - Indianola Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments State Agencies California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Response to Caltrans-1 The commenter stated that Caltrans has reviewed the Draft IS/MND. The commenter indicates that access to the subdivision would be provided from the current terminus at Annadale Avenue south to North Avenue to the north. This statement is incorrect. As stated in the Draft IS/MND on page 9: Access to the site would be provided from the east via connections to the current terminus of Almond Avenue, Edgar Avenue, and Moir Avenue. A single access point would connect to E. Annadale Avenue to the north. Similarly, a single access point would connect to E. North Avenue to the south. In addition, the applicant would extend Indianola Avenue by approximately 2,610 feet from its current terminus at E. Annadale Avenue south to E. North Avenue, and provide two points of access from the extended roadway. The project site is not located near the current terminus of Annadale Avenue as indicated by the commenter. The terminus of Annadale Avenue is located at McCall Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site. The project site is bounded to the north by Annadale Avenue, to the west by the proposed extension of Indianola Avenue, to the south by North Avenue, and to the east by existing residential development. Response to Caltrans-2 The commenter stated that projected trips generated by the project would primarily access major urban job centers using SR-180 at its intersection with either McCall Avenue or Bethel Avenue. The commenter states that the project would generate approximately 312 trips during the peak PM travel period, resulting in significant impacts to these intersections. As indicated in the Draft IS/MND and supported by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project (Appendix G of the Draft IS/MND), the intersections of State Route 180 (SR-180) at McCall Avenue and Bethel Avenue were not included as study intersections. Study intersections were determined in coordination with the City of Sanger and include locations requested by County of Fresno staff based on the anticipated project traffic distribution, the size of the project, and the existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The commenter is correct that the project would generate approximately 312 trips during the PM peak travel period. As indicated by Figure 4 of the Traffic Impact Study, project trip distribution percentages show that only 9 percent of project traffic would use McCall Avenue north of Jensen Avenue and only 5 percent of project traffic would use Bethel Avenue north of Jensen Avenue, although not all of those trips extend to SR-180. The results of the select zone analysis indicate that 25 AM peak-hour project trips and 29 PM peak-hour project trips would enter the intersection of SR-180 and McCall Avenue. The select zone analysis also indicates that 5 AM peak-hour project trips and 8 PM peak-hour project trips would enter the intersection of SR-180 and Bethel Avenue. FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx

12 Responses to Written Comments City of Sanger - Indianola Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002 (Caltrans Guide) provides trip generation thresholds as a starting point for determining when a traffic analysis is needed. Section II.A.3 of the Caltrans Guide states that projects generating between 1 and 49 peak hour trips on a state highway facility may require a study if the affected state highway facility is experiencing a significant delay (LOS E or LOS F), if the potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased, or if there is a change in the circulation network. According to a separate Traffic Impact Study report by Peters Engineering Group dated December 20, 2013 (2013 TIS) for a proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone northeast of the intersection of SR-180 and McCall Avenue, the intersection of SR-180 and McCall Avenue is currently operating at LOS D. This, in combination with the fact that the project would not increase potential for traffic incident or change circulation at the intersection indicates that, none of the Caltrans criteria for requiring analysis of the intersection of SR-180 and McCall Avenue are met. The rezone project analyzed in the 2013 TIS was not required to analyze intersections to the east or west of McCall Avenue on SR-180, even though the number of new trips for the rezone project estimated at those locations exceeded 35 trips. Based on this precedent and because the criteria presented in the Caltrans Guide described above were not met, analysis of the intersection of SR-180 and McCall Avenue was not performed in the 2014 traffic study for the proposed Indianola Subdivision Project. As such, the Indianola Subdivision Project would not cause a significant impact at the intersection. Response to Caltrans-3 The commenter indicated that SR-180 east of Temperance Avenue is designated as a 4-lane expressway with at-grade intersections; however, once at-grade intersections cannot accommodate traffic demand, interchanges would be required. As such, Caltrans has begun preparing interchange footprints along the SR-180 corridor east of Temperance Avenue, including the SR-180 at McCall Avenue intersection. The commenter further stated that prior to the implementation of an interchange at SR-180 at McCall Avenue, interim improvements would be needed for the at-grade intersection. Finally, the commenter states that the project should contribute fair-share contributions toward the interim improvements at SR-180 at McCall Avenue. As noted in Response to Caltrans-2, the project would contribute trips but would not cause a significant impact at this intersection. Exact determination of such fees for the trip contribution is not subject to CEQA and is a separate process performed with information from the project s Traffic Impact Study at the request of the City in coordination with the project applicant and Caltrans. Should fees be determined, a mitigation agreement would be entered into between Caltrans and the applicant to ensure fees are paid into an account specific to the improvements for the intersection. Response to Caltrans-4 The commenter anticipates that the project will pay into the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF), but notes that SR-180 at the McCall Avenue intersection is not included in the RTMF s Expenditure Plan. 2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx

13 City of Sanger - Indianola Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments The project will pay all development fees and impact mitigation fees required by the City of Sanger, including RTMF fees as collected by the Fresno County Council of Government (COG). Response to Caltrans-5 The commenter noted that Caltrans was not provided the Traffic Impact Study referred to in the Draft IS/MND. A CD containing the Draft IS/MND and Traffic Impact Study (included as Appendix G to the Draft IS/MND) was mailed to Caltrans at 1352 W. Olive Avenue, Fresno, CA on February 4, Caltrans was contacted on March 12, 2015, at which time it confirmed that a copy of the Traffic Impact Study was received on the CD. The commenter also requested a response to the comments raised in the letter prior to any action taking place on the project. This Final IS/MND is made publicly available prior to action on the project. FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx

14 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15 March 05, 2015 Keith Woodcock City of Sanger Planning Division th Street Sanger, CA Agency Project: Pre-Zoning No , Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (CUP No ), Tentative Tract Map No. 6093, Annexation/Detachment No for the Indianola Subdivision Project District CEQA Reference No: Dear Mr. Woodcock: The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the project referenced above consisting of a 312-lot single family residential Planned Unit Development located between East Annadale Avenue and East North Avenue, adjacent to the City limits within the City of Sanger s Sphere of Influence in unincorporated Fresno County. Fresno County zones the project site as AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum). The project site consists of approximately acres. A well site would be located in the northeast corner of the project site and would be dedicated to the City for use in conjunction with the City s existing potable water service. The District offers the following comments: 1. Based on information provided to the District, project specific emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed District significance thresholds of 10 tons/year NOX, 10 tons/year ROG, and 15 tons/year PM10. Therefore, the District concludes that project specific criteria pollutant emissions would have no significant adverse impact on air quality. 2. Based on information provided to the District, at full build-out, the proposed project would be equal to or greater than 50 residential dwelling units. Therefore, the District concludes that the proposed project is subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect

16 District CEQA Reference No: Page 2 of 3 Source Review). District Rule 9510 is intended to reduce a project s impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigate its impact by payment of applicable off-site mitigation fees. Pursuant to District Rule 9510 (ISR) section 5.0, an applicant subject to the rule shall submit an Air Impact Assessment Application (AIA) to the District no later than applying for final discretionary approval with the public agency. Based on a review of District records, we have not received an AIA application for this project. Therefore, if this approval constitutes the final discretionary approval, the project proponent may be in violation of District Rule 9510 requirements. In addition, please note that starting construction before receiving an approved AIA and paying the required Off-site Mitigation Fees, if any, is a violation of District regulations and is subject to enforcement action. The District recommends that demonstration of compliance with District Rule 9510, including payment of all applicable fees before issuance of the first grading/building permit, be made a condition of project approval. More information regarding District Rule 9510 can be obtained by: ing inquiries to: ISR@valleyair.org; Visiting the District s website at: or For project specific assistance, the District recommends the applicant contact the District s Indirect Source Review (ISR) staff at (559) The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, page 30, states: localized pollutant analysis - the District has provided guidance for screening localized impacts in its 2014 Draft Guidance Document... If the project does not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant, then it can be assumed that it would not cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard. The District offers the following clarification: (1) The 2014 draft guidance should not be used since it is still a draft, (2) the 100 pounds/day can be used as a screening level, and (3) if emissions of any criteria pollutant do not exceed the 100 pounds/day screening level, then the project is not expected to cause or contribute to any violation of the ambient air quality standards. 4. The proposed project may be subject to District Rules and Regulations, including: Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), and Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines). The above list of rules is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to this project, the applicant is encouraged to contact the District s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559)

17 District CEQA Reference No: Page 3 of 3 More information regarding District rules and regulation can be obtained by: Visiting the District s website at for a complete listing of all current District rules and regulation, or Visiting the District s website at PM10/compliance_PM10.htm for information on controlling fugitive dust emissions 5. The District recommends that a copy of the District s comments be provided to the project proponent. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Georgia Stewart by phone at (559) Sincerely, Arnaud Marjollet Director of Permit Services For: Chay Thao Program Manager AM: gs

18 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

19 City of Sanger - Indianola Subdivision Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments Local Agencies San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Response to SJVAPCD-1 The commenter indicated that, based on information provided to SJVAPCD, the project is not expected to exceed significance thresholds of 10 tons/year NO x, 10 tons/year ROG, or 15 tons/year PM 10. The commenter stated that the SJVAPCD concludes that project specific criteria pollutant emissions would have no significant adverse impact on air quality. This is consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft IS/MND. Response to SJVAPCD -2 The commenter indicated that the project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). District Rule 9510 is intended to reduce a project s impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigate its impacts by payment of applicable off-site mitigation fees. An Air Impact Assessment Application (AIA) is due to the SJVAPCD no later than applying for final discretionary approval with the public agency (City of Sanger). The commenter further states that a violation of SJVAPCD regulations may result if an AIA is not submitted prior to discretionary approval or if construction commences prior to receiving an approved AIA and paying identified mitigation fees. The project applicant is in the process of finalizing an AIA to identify mitigation fees and payment schedule as required by Rule Response to SJVAPCD -3 The commenter provided clarification regarding the SJVAPCD 2014 Draft Guidance Document and the use of the 100-pound-per-day criteria pollutant threshold presented therein. The commenter stated that the 2014 Draft Guidance Document should not be used since it is still a draft. This comment is noted. However, the commenter also stated that the 100 pounds per day can be used as a screening level. Finally, the commenter indicated that if emissions of any criteria pollutant do not exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level, then the project is not expected to cause or contribute to any violation of the ambient air quality standards. The Draft IS/MND acknowledges that the 100 pounds per day criteria is from the Draft Guidance Document. Consistent with the indicated allowable use of the 100-pound-per-day as a screening level, the Draft IS/MND concludes that the project would not exceed this level for NO x, CO, PM 10 or PM 2.5 as indicated in Table 4. Although the 100-pound-per-criteria is referenced as a significance threshold, not a screening level in Table 4, the information provided is still applicable and the less than significant conclusion is fully supported. Response to SJVAPCD -4 The commenter stated that the project may be subject to additional SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations. The project would comply with SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations as applicable and will contact the SJVAPCD to confirm. Response to SJVAPCD -5 The commenter recommended that a copy of the comment letter be provided to the project proponent. Such recommendation has been implemented. FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2775\ \Final ISMND\ Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx

20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK