FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND INITIAL STUDY
NEW STUDENT UNION PROJECT
State Clearinghouse #2019029015
AUGUST 2019
COVER IMAGE SOURCE: STANTEC 2016.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NEW STUDENT UNION PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY:
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
2351 E. Barstow Avenue
Fresno, California 93740
PREPARED BY:
DUDEK
725 Front Street, Suite 400
Santa Cruz, California 95060
AUGUST 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
California State University, Fresno
New Student Union Project
Lead Agency: California State University Board of Trustees
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802-4210
California State University, Fresno (Fresno State)
2351 E. Barstow Avenue
Fresno, California 93740
Project Location: Fresno State
Description of Project: The proposed New Student Union Project (Project) would involve
the construction of a new, approximately 70-foot-tall, 80,000-gross-square-foot (GSF) Student
Union building. The Project would also include demolition of the existing 7,400-GSF Keats
building, as well as the amphitheater and stage on the Project site. The building would include
lounge spaces, meeting rooms for student clubs and organizations, campus-serving retail
services and program spaces, and offices for professional staff affiliated with Fresno State. The
Project would also include a 12,000-square-foot multi-purpose meeting room accommodating
1,200 seats. A new student plaza would be created north of the new Student Union building.
A master plan revision is also proposed to accommodate the new Student Union building on
the proposed Project site. This would involve changes to the current Master Plan that would
add the Project to the proposed location and remove the existing Keats building and
amphitheater/stage from the Project site.
Finding: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is proposedhas been prepared by the
California State University Board of Trustees (Trustees) for the Project. The Trustees is the
lead agency for the preparation of the MND in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). Per California
Education Code Section 66606, the Trustees is the governing body and has the authority to
adopt the CEQA document, approve the Master Plan revision, and provide for other approvals
for the Project. Fresno State is the point of contact for the CEQA process.
The attached Initial Study and supporting documents have been prepared to determine if the
Project would result in potentially significant or significant impacts on the environment. The
public review period occurred from Tuesday, February 5, 2019, to Thursday, March 7, 2019.
On the basis of the Initial Study and the whole record, the California State University has
determined that, with incorporation of Project-specific mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study, the Project would not result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Supporting Documentation: The documentation supporting this determination is discussed
in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project.
INITIAL STUDY
NEW STUDENT UNION PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY:
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
2351 E. Barstow Avenue
Fresno, California 93740
PREPARED BY:
DUDEK
725 Front Street, Suite 400
Santa Cruz, California 95060
AUGUST 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11446 i
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 CEQA Authority to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................. 1
1.3 Other Agencies’ Use of the MND ..................................................................................... 2
1.4 Public Review Process .......................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 3
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 7
2.2.1 Master Plan Revision ............................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 New Student Union Building .............................................................................. 12
2.3 Project Operations ............................................................................................................ 17
2.3.1 Events ...................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Employment Growth ........................................................................................... 17
2.4 Project Demolition and Construction ........................................................................... 18
2.5 Discretionary Actions........................................................................................................ 18
3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................................. 28
3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 40
3.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 44
3.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................... 46
3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 48
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 55
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 59
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 63
3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 69
3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 71
3.13 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 73
3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 83
3.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 84
3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 85
3.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 86
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................. 90
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................ 92
3.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 95
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 97
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
11446 ii
DUDEK August 2019
4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 101
5 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 109
6 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................... 111
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Project Site and Setting ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3 Existing Master Plan .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4 Proposed Master Plan........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 5 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6 Conceptual Rendering of the Project ............................................................................ 16
Figure 7 Construction Site Access Plan ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 Existing Views of the Project Site ................................................................................... 26
Figure 9 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................ 76
TABLES
Table 1 Project Approvals ............................................................................................................... 20
Table 2 SJVAPCD CEQA Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants ........................... 31
Table 3 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources .............................................................. 33
Table 4 Estimated Maximum Annual Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ....... 36
Table 5 Estimated Maximum Annual Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions –
Non-Permitted Sources .................................................................................................... 37
Table 6 Estimated Maximum Annual Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions –
Permitted Sources ...............................................................................................................37
Table 7 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................... 57
Table 8 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results ...................................................................... 76
Table 9 Short-Term Measured Noise Levels (dBA) .................................................................. 76
Table 10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels .......................................................................... 79
Table 11 Construction Phase, Duration, and Equipment Estimates ........................................ 80
Table 12 Construction Noise Modeling Summary Results ........................................................ 81
Table 13 Peak Construction Phase Trip Generation .................................................................. 88
APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Outputs
B Special-Status Wildlife and Plant Species Potential to Occur
C Cultural Resources Technical Report
D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E Public Comments and Responses
11446 1
DUDEK August 2019
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
California State University, Fresno (Fresno State) proposes to construct a new, approximately
80,000-gross-square-foot (GSF) Student Union building (New Student Union Project or
Project) south of the existing Keats building located in the central portion of the Fresno State
campus (see Figure 1, Regional MapProject Location, and Figure 2, Vicinity MapProject Site and
Setting). The Project would include demolition of the existing Keats building, amphitheater, and
stage. Utility infrastructure improvements, as well as new lighting and landscaping, would also
be provided. The Project would not include additional parking facilities.
1.2 CEQA AUTHORITY TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves as the main framework of
environmental law and policy in California. CEQA emphasizes the need for public disclosure
and identifying and preventing environmental damage associated with proposed projects. Unless
a proposed project is deemed categorically exempt, CEQA is applicable to any project that
must be approved by a public agency in order to be processed and established. This Project
does not fall under any of the statutory or categorical exemptions listed in the 2013 CEQA
Statute and Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.; 14 California
Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), and, therefore, must meet CEQA requirements.
The Board of Trustees of the California State University (Board of Trustees) is the lead agency
pursuant to CEQA and is responsible for preparing and adopting the CEQA document for the
Project. The Board of Trustees has determined that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is
the appropriate environmental document to be prepared for the Project in compliance with
CEQA. This finding is based on the Environmental Checklist/Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation (Chapter 3 of this document). Per the CEQA Guidelines, a MND may be prepared
for a project subject to CEQA if an initial study (IS) has identified potentially significant effects
on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to
by, the project proponent before the proposed MND and IS are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point in which clearly no significant effect on
the environment would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment (California Public Resources Code, Section 21064.5).
11446 2
DUDEK August 2019
This IS/MND has been prepared by the Board of Trustees as the lead agency and in
conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Fresno State is acting as point of
contact for the CEQA process. The purpose of the IS/MND is to determine the potential
significant impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project, and to
incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate the significant or
potentially significant effects of the Project.
1.3 OTHER AGENCIES’ USE OF THE MND
This IS/MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have an
interest in reviewing the Project. At the time of the IS/MND’s publication, the Board of
Trustees does not believe permits or authorizations required from other agencies or individuals
would require such agencies’ or individuals’ need to comply with CEQA.
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should were asked
to focus on the sufficient identification and analysis of possible impacts on the environment in
the document.
Fresno State issued a Notice of Availability and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project. Comments may becould have been made on the IS/MND
in writing before the end of the public review period. A 30-day review and comment period
from February 5, 2019, to March 7, 2019, has beenwas established in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15072(a). Following the close of the public comment period, tThe Board of
Trustees will consider this IS/MND and its comments in determining whether to adopt the
MND, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP; see Appendix D), and
approve the Project.
Written comments on the IS/MND should be have been sent to the following address by
5:00 p.m., on March 7, 2019.
Ms. Tinnah Medina
Associate Vice President for Facilities Management
California State University, Fresno
2351 E. Barstow Avenue M/S PO88
Fresno, California 93740-8004
[email protected]tate.edu
Public comments received during the review period and responses to those comments are
included in Appendix E. Changes to the issued Draft IS/MND are indicated by vertical lines in
the margin of the page and made in underline/strikethrough to reflect the public review process
and finalization of the document.
11446 3
DUDEK August 2019
1.5 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project site is located on the existing Fresno State campus in the City of Fresno, California.
The Fresno State campus is located near the intersection of State Route (SR) 168 and Shaw
Avenue. Major streets surrounding the campus include Shaw Avenue, North Cedar Avenue,
East Barstow Avenue, and North Chestnut Avenue (see Figure 1).
The Project site is located north of East Keats Avenue and east of the existing Parking Lot 31 in
the core of the main campus, and encompasses the existing Keats building, as well as the
existing amphitheater and stage (see Figure 2). This Project vicinity also contains other
academic and administrative facilities, including the Speech Arts building, Music Building, Henry
Madden Library, and existing University Student Union. There is a surface parking lot (Parking
Lot 31) adjacent to the Project site to the west.
The existing Keats building is a one-story, modest Contemporary style, educational building,
originally constructed in 1956. The Keats building sits on the northern portion of the Project
site, with its main elevation facing northward. A 1,500-square-foot extension was added to the
south elevation of the building in 1959. The stage, originally constructed in 1963, is a one-story,
open concrete platform covered by a metal canopy roof which was added in 1980. The
amphitheater seating area consists of a graded grass field delineated by concrete dividers
forming equally spaced rectangular sections, creating a series of 24 grass sections for seating up
to 5,000 people. A total of 69 landscape trees, some of which are part of Fresno State’s formal
arboretum, are located throughout the Project site.
Project Location
New Student Union Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2018
Date: 12/10/2018 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND\Figure01_ProjectLocation.mxd
02,0001,000
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Avenal
Corcoran
Corcoran
Lemoore
Hanford
Huron
Firebaugh
Madera
Chowchilla
Bishop
Mammoth
Lakes
San Joaquin
Fresno
Clovis
Kerman
Selma
Fowler
Kingsburg
Coalinga
Delano
Porterville
Lindsay
Tula re
Exeter
Woodlake
Dos Palos
Atwater
Merced
Tur lock
Ceres
Riverbank
Mendota
Mono
County
Mariposa
County
Madera
County
Merced
County
Fresno
County
San
Benito
County
Monterey
County
Tulare
County
Kings
County
101
6
395
145
108
198
180
201
99
33
203
269
59
216
63
25
43
49
137
152
245
165
132
65
198
140
190
33
168
41
5
Project Site
FIGURE 2
Project Site and Setting
New Student Union Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2018
Date: 12/10/2018 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND\Figure02_ProjectSite.mxd
0 200100
Feet
Project Boundary
11446 6
DUDEK August 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11446 7
DUDEK August 2019
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA indicates that the statement of project objectives should be clearly written to define the
underlying purpose of a project to aid the lead agency in making findings when considering the
project for approval. Fresno State lacks the necessary modernized student life and support
spaces to meet the needs and expectations of students, faculty, and staff. Facilities dedicated to
student life on the campus are dispersed in the existing University Student Union, Satellite
Student Union, and Bookstore. The Project would result in the construction of a new, centrally
located Student Union building envisioned to be a hub of student life and activity. The
objectives of the Project are as follows:
1) Provide additional, centrally located student life and support spaces on campus to serve
the needs of over 24,000 students, 270 clubs, student government, and other social
organizations.
2) Improve connectivity of student life functions and accessibility of amenities.
3) Create a focal point on the campus that integrates faculty and students of all levels,
promotes socialization and community, and functions as a hub of student life and
activity.
4) Use sustainable design principles and ensure that new construction achieves at least
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or equivalent performance
and energy efficiency at or beyond Title 24 requirements.
2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
2.2.1 Master Plan Revision
The Campus Master Plan, adopted by the Trustees of the California State University in 2011,
addresses all aspects of future physical development and land use on the campus to
accommodate the approved enrollment capacity of 25,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES).
The campus proposes revisions to the physical master plan to accommodate one new facility,
the New Student Union (#79). The new Student Union would support student life and dining,
complementing the existing University Student Union (#80) and the Satellite Student Union
(#78). The Project would demolish the 1956 Keats building (#95) and the 1963 open
Amphitheater. The Project would be sited on this open area immediately south of the Keats
building. Figure 3 shows the existing Master Plan and Figure 4 shows the proposed revisions to
the Master Plan.
Existing Master Plan
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 3a
SOURCE: Fresno State 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\Fresno
0DVWHU3ODQ(QUROOPHQW
)7
(
0DVWHU3ODQD
SS
URYHGE
\
WKH%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV)HEUXDU
\

 -R\DO$GPLQLVWUDWLR
Q
56. Social Science Addition
 0XVL
77. Satellite Student Union Addition
 6
S
HHFK$UWV  6DWHOOLWH6WXGHQW8QLR
Q
 &RQOH
\
$U
W
 8QLYHUVLW
\
6WXGHQW8QLR
Q
7 &RQOH
\
$UW
7HP
S
RUDU
\
3ULQW0DNLQ
J
/DE
 6H
T
XRLD&HGDU+DO
O

$J
ULFXOWXU
H
 %LUFK+DO
O
 0F/DQH+DO
O
 5HVLGHQFH$WULX
P
 3URIHVVLRQDODQG+XPDQ6HUYLFHV  6
\
FDPRUH+DOO
 )DPLO
\
DQG)RRG6FLHQF
H

$
V
S
HQ3RQGHURVD+DO
O
 0F.HH)LV
N
 %DNHU+DOO
 6RFLDO6FLHQF
H
 *UDYHV+DO
O
 (Q
J
LQHHULQ
J
:HV
W
 +RPDQ+DOO
$ (Q
J
LQHHULQ
J
:HVW$QQH
[
 6KL
SS
LQ
J
5HFHLYLQ
J
3ULQW6KR
S
 *URVVH,QGXVWULDO7HFKQROR
J\
 )RRWEDOO6WDGLX
P
$ 0')µ$¶ $ 0')µ&¶
 1RUWK*
\
PQDVLX
P
& 6RFFHU/DFURVVH5HVWURRP
% 6
S
DOGLQ
J
:DWKHQ7HQQLV&HQWH
U
 %RE%HQQHWW6WDGLX
P
& 1RUWK*
\
PQDVLXP$GGLWLR
Q
$ %DVHEDOO%DWWLQ
J
&D
JH
' 1RUWK*
\
PQDVLXP$QQH
[
 'XQFDQ$WKOHWLF)DFLOLW
\
( 7UDFNDQG)LHOG+RXV
H
$ 0H\HUV)DPLO\6SRUWV0HGLFLQH&HQWH
U
)
$T
XDWLFV&HQWH
U
 6WUHQ
J
WKDQG&RQGLWLRQLQ
J
&HQWH
 6RXWK*
\
PQDVLX
P
 .HDWV&DP
S
XV
$ Physical Education Addition  0DUJLH:ULJKW'LDPRQ
G
 (Q
J
LQHHULQ
J
(DV
W
$ 6RIWEDOO%DWWLQ
J
&D
JH
 6FLHQF
H
 &RU
S
RUDWLRQ<DU
G
$ 'RZQLQ
J
3ODQHWDULX
P
. 3XEOLF6DIHW
\
DQG$GGLWLR
Q
% &ULPH/DE  -RUGDQ$
J
ULFXOWXUDO5HVHDUFK&HQWH
U
& 6FLHQFH,
,
7 (GXFDWLRQ$QQH[7UDLOH
' 'RZQLQ
J
3ODQHWDULXP0XVHX
P
 8QLYHUVLW
\
+L
J
K6FKRR
( 0')µ%¶ 7 /DE6FKRRO$QQH
[
 3K
\
VLFDO7KHUD
S\
DQG,QWHUFROOH
J
LDWH$WKOHWLF  6DYH0DUW&HQWH
U

$J
ULFXOWXUDO0HFKDQLF
V
$ 6WXGHQW5HFUHDWLRQ&HQWH
U
 +HQU
\
0DGGHQ/LEUDU
\
 *UHHQKRXVH
V
 7HP
S
RUDU
\
/DE6FKRR
O
 0HWHRUROR
J\
%XLOGLQ
J
 .HQQHO%RRNVWRU
H
$ 3RVW+DUYHVW&ROG6WRUDJ
H
 8QLYHUVLW\&HQWH
U
235J. Foaling Barn
 6WXGHQW+HDOWK&HQWH
U
 +RPH0DQDJHPHQ
W
&DPSXV3RLQW
H
 5HVLGHQFH'LQLQ
J
38. Bookstore/Food Service  &DPSXV3RLQWH0XOWL)DPLO\+RXVLQ
J
 )UDQN:7KRPDV%XLOGLQ
J
401. Campus Pointe Senior Housin
g
41.
A
dministratio
n
402. Campus Pointe Hote
l
 6PLWWFDP
S
$OXPQL+RXV
H
 &DP
S
XV3RLQWH5HWDL
O
43. Parking Structure 404. Campus Pointe - Offic
e
44. Classroom/Academic Services Buildin
g
 .UHPHQ6FKRRORI(GXFDWLRQDQG+XPD
Q
'HYHORSPHQW /(*(1'
47. Humanities/Auditoriu
m
([LVWLQJ)DFLOLW\Proposed Facilit
y
49. Graphic Art
s
 3HWHUV%XVLQHV
V
127(([LVWLQ
J
EXLOGLQ
J
QXPEHUVFRUUHV
S
RQ
G
$ 3HWHUV%XVLQHVV$QQH
[
ZLWKEXLOGLQ
J
QXPEHUVLQWKH6
S
DFHDQG)DFLOLWLH
 0F/DQH+DOO$GGLWLRQ 'DWD%DVH6)'%
0DVWHU3ODQ5HYLVLRQDSSURYHGE\WKH%RDUGRI7UXVWHHV1RYHPEHU-DQXDU\-XQH
0D\6HSWHPEHU-DQXDU\-DQXDU\-DQXDU\1RYHPEHU0D\
-XO\6HSWHPEHU0DUFK6HSWHPEHU1RYHPEHU-XO\1RYHPEHU
Existing Master Plan Legend
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 3b
SOURCE: Fresno State 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
Proposed Master Plan
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 4a
SOURCE: Fresno State 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
Campus Master Plan
Master Plan Enrollment: 25,000 FTE
Approval Date: February 1965
Revised Date: November 2011
Pending Revision: 2019
Main Campus Acreage: 327 Acres
California State University, Fresno
Master Plan Enrollment: 25
,
000 FTE
Master Plan a
pp
roved b
y
the Board of Trustees: Februar
y
1964
1. Joyal Administration 56. Social Science Addition
2. Music 77. Satellite Student Union Addition
3. S
p
eech Arts 78. Satellite Student Union
4. Conley Art 79. New Student Union
4T. Conle
y
Art
(
Tem
p
orar
y
Print Makin
g
Lab
)
80. Universit
y
Student Union
5. A
g
riculture 81. Se
q
uoia/Cedar Hall
6. McLane Hall 82. Birch Hall
7. Professional and Human Services 83. Residence Atrium
8. Famil
y
and Food Science 84. S
y
camore Hall
9. McKee Fisk 85. As
p
en/Ponderosa Hall
10. Social Science 86. Baker Hall
11. En
g
ineerin
g
West 87. Graves Hall
11A. En
g
ineerin
g
West Annex 88. Homan Hall
12. Grosse Industrial Technolo
gy
90. Shi
pp
in
g
/Receivin
g
/Print Sho
p
12A. MDF ‘A’ 91. Football Stadium
13. North G
y
mnasium 91A. MDF ‘C’
13B. S
p
aldin
g
Wathen Tennis Center 91C. Soccer/Lacrosse Restroom
13C. North G
y
mnasium Addition 92. Bob Bennett Stadium
13D. North G
y
mnasium Annex 92A. Baseball Battin
g
Ca
g
e
13E. Track and Field House 93. Duncan Athletic Facilit
y
13F. Aquatics Center 93A. Meyers Family Sports Medicine Center
14. South G
y
mnasium 94. Stren
g
th and Conditionin
g
Center
14A. Physical Education Addition 96. Margie Wright Diamond
15. En
g
ineerin
g
East 96A. Softball Battin
g
Ca
g
e
16. Science 99. Cor
p
oration Yard
17A. Downin
g
Planetarium 99K. Public Safet
y
and Addition
17B. Crime Lab 110. Jordan A
g
ricultural Research Center
17C. Science II 133T. Education Annex Trailer
17D. Downin
g
Planetarium Museum 134. Universit
y
Hi
g
h School
17E. MDF ‘B’ 135T. Lab School Annex
19. Ph
y
sical Thera
py
and Intercolle
g
iate Athletics 150. Save Mart Center
23. A
g
ricultural Mechanics 150A. Student Recreation Center
27. Henr
y
Madden Librar
y
170. Greenhouses
30. Tem
p
orar
y
Lab School 180. Meteorolo
gy
Buildin
g
31. Kennel Bookstore 226A. Post Harvest Cold Storage
32. University Center 235J. Foaling Barn
33. Student Health Center
34. Home Management Campus Pointe
35. Residence Dining
38. Bookstore/Food Service 400. Campus Pointe Multi-Family Housing
40. Frank W. Thomas Building 401. Campus Pointe Senior Housing
41. Administration 402. Campus Pointe Hotel
42. Smittcam
p
Alumni House 403. Cam
p
us Pointe Retail
43. Parking Structure 404. Campus Pointe - Office
44. Classroom/Academic Services Building
46. Kremen School of Education and Human
Development LEGEND:
47. Humanities/Auditorium
Existing Facility / Proposed Facility
49. Graphic Arts
50. Peters Business NOTE: Existin
g
buildin
g
numbers corres
p
ond
50A. Peters Business Annex with buildin
g
numbers in the S
p
ace and Facilities
54. McLane Hall Addition Data Base (SFDB)
Master Plan Revision approved by the Board of Trustees: November 1966, January 1967, June 1968,
May 1970, September 1970, January 1973, January 1975, January 1982, November 1982, May 1984,
July 1988, September 1989, March 1990, September 1994, November 1999, July 2007, November 2011,
Pending 2019
Proposed Master Plan Legend
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 4b
SOURCE: Fresno State 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
11446 12
DUDEK August 2019
2.2.2 New Student Union Building
The Project would result in the construction of a new, approximately 70-foot-tall, 80,000-GSF
Student Union building. The Project would also include demolition of the existing 7,400-GSF
Keats building, as well as the approximately 47,000-square-foot amphitheater and 3,000-square-
foot stage on the Project site.
The building would include lounge spaces, meeting rooms for student clubs and organizations,
campus-serving retail services and program spaces, and offices for professional staff affiliated
with Fresno State. The building would also include a 12,000-square-foot multi-purpose meeting
room accommodating 1,200 seats. A new student plaza would be created north of the new
Student Union building.
The building would include state-of-the-art technology, including indoor sound systems, lighting,
and equipment for large presentations, and would require ancillary support spaces within the
building, such as a technician office and storage areas.
The total site area disturbed for the Project would be approximately 3.5 acres. Figure 5 shows
the site plan for the Project.
Infrastructure and Service Systems
Water. The Project would be served by the existing potable water infrastructure near the
Project site with new service connections provided for the new building. The new domestic
water service would be extended from an existing 6-inch water main line traversing east-west,
south of the Keats building and the access road. The existing water pressure for campus is
generally adequate at 50 pounds per square inch. If required, a booster pump would be
provided as part of the Project. A new meter would be installed to monitor consumption for
remote meter reading.
Water would be supplied by Fresno State’s groundwater well system. The Project’s proposed
water use would be approximately 2 million gallons per year, which would result in a net
increase of 1.8 million gallons per year taking into consideration the demolition of the Keats
building.
1
Wastewater. The Project would be served by the existing wastewater infrastructure near the
Project site with new service connections provided for the new building. Service would be
extended from an existing 8-inch main sewer line immediately south of Keats Building. An
existing 6-inch sewer line traversing east-west servicing the Music building would need to be
relocated to accommodate the new building footprint. Backflow preventers would be provided
to separate potable and unsafe water systems.
1
Estimated using an approximate water usage rate of 25 gallons per year per square foot adopted from a 2010
study of water usage at the University of California, Berkeley.
EXISTING AMPHITHEATRE
TO BE DEMOLISHED/REMOVED
LIMIT OF MAXIMUM
DISTURBED AREA
"KEATS" BUILDING
TO BE DEMOLISHED/REMOVED
PROPOSED BUILDING
±60,000 SF
(±30,000 SF 1ST FLOOR)
LIMIT OF MAXIMUM
DISTURBED AREA
Site Plan
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 5
SOURCE: Adapted from Yamabe & Horn Engineering, Inc. 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
WAHLBERG RECITAL HALL
SPEECH ARTS BUILDING
MUSIC
BUILDING
11446 14
DUDEK August 2019
The Project’s proposed wastewater generation would be approximately 1.8 million gallons
per year, which would result in a net increase of 1.6 million gallons per year taking into
consideration the demolition of the Keats building.
2
Stormwater and Irrigation. The Project would increase the impervious surface area on the site
from approximately 0.8 acres (23 percent of the site) to approximately 1 acre (29 percent of
the site), which would represent an increase in the impervious surface area of 6 percent. This
would be expected to result in an increase in stormwater runoff of approximately 0.1 cubic feet
per second.
The campus is required to comply with the Phase 1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4) permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in
2016, and the Storm Water Quality Management Program (SWQMP), adopted in 2013. The
Project site is larger than 1 acre, and would need to apply for a Construction General Permit
and incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) measures into the Project design.
A reduced pressure backflow preventer (RPBP) would be provided for irrigation. Project would
use a sub-surface drip irrigation system.
Heating and Cooling. There currently is insufficient capacity in the existing campus Central Plant
infrastructure to accommodate the Project. The Project would be served by independent and
dedicated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. New site utility stub outs
for future connections would be provided for connection to the Heating Hot Water (HHW)
loop and the Chilled Water Loop (CHW).
Lighting. Exterior lighting would be limited to security lighting near doorways and pathways.
Exterior lighting would adhere to LEED–New Construction (NC) guidelines for light pollution
reduction and energy efficiency.
Energy. The Project would be designed to meet at least LEED Gold equivalent and would, at a
minimum, comply with Title 24 Building, Energy and Green Buildings Standards (California
Building Code, Title 24, Parts 4, 6, and 11). Project lighting, in particular, would be a
minimum of 20 percent more efficient than California Energy Code requirements.
Sustainable design strategies for the new building would include the use of high-performance
glazing and a light-colored, single-ply, thermoplastic roof membrane over a well-insulated
roof assembly to reduce heat gain during the summer. Other sustainable features would
include energy-efficient light fixtures, lighting controls, and water-conserving plumbing
fixtures. A new Direct Digital Control system would be installed to monitor and operate
utilities. The Direct Digital Control system would be integrated with a total building Energy
Management System to monitor electrical, natural gas, and water usage. Lighting controls
would also be integrated. The building roof would be solar ready and able to support future
installation of a photovoltaic system; however, this is not a part of the Project being
analyzed.
2
Assumed to be roughly 90 percent of the water consumption rate.
11446 15
DUDEK August 2019
Electricity is currently provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The facility would be served
from a new 12-kilovolt (kV) to 277/480-volt (V) pad-mounted transformer and would be less
than 1,000 kilovolt-amperes (kVA). A number of on-site improvements to the electrical services
would be required to serve the new building. These improvements include a new pad-mounted
transformer, and transformer conductors and conduit. Additionally, underground feeder
circuits would be installed to provide services to the new building. The Project would to be
served by the existing 12-kV distribution lines that run parallel to the adjacent surface parking
lot west of the Project site. A 400-kV diesel emergency generator would also be installed to
serve the new building.
The Project would be served by the existing gas lines on or near the Project site with new
service connections provided for the new building. Gas utilities on site are owned by the
University and would be modified and relocated as needed based on the requirements of the
Project. A new meter would be installed to monitor consumption. Gas would be utilized for
domestic hot water and space heating. To reduce gas consumption, point-of-use electric water
heaters in place of gas water heaters would be utilized. Service would be extended from a 1-
inch gas line tapped on to an existing 8-inch gas line located to the west in the adjacent parking
lot. It is assumed that a gas booster system is not required.
Solid Waste. The Project would be provided with similar trash and recycling services as other
existing buildings on the campus.
Access and Parking
A new loading dock would be constructed as part of the new Student Union building, to allow
for delivery vehicle access to the building. Vehicles would access the new loading dock via a
new or existing vehicle access point from the existing parking lot to the west (Parking Lot 31)
of the Project site.
The existing parking would remain unchanged with the Project. The Project would be located
east of the existing Parking Lot 31, which would serve the Project. Parking Lot 31 is currently
underutilized and would have adequate capacity to serve the Project; no new parking stalls
would be added.
Design and Landscaping
Figure 6 depicts a conceptual rendering of the new Student Union building. The Project aims to
encourage the use of architectural techniques that create open spaces which are highly visible,
inviting, and identifiable, with a goal of achieving visual transparency between the interior and
exterior of the building.
Conceptual Rendering of the Project
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 6
SOURCE: Stantec 2016
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
11446 17
DUDEK August 2019
Project construction would result in the removal of some of the existing landscape trees
located on the Project site, some of which are part of the campus’s formal arboretum. There
are 69 ornamental trees located within the Project site. These include:
• 28 Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens)
• 18 American sweetgums (Liquidambar styraciflua)
• 12 ginkgos (Ginkgo biloba)
• 6 Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta)
• 2 Japanese black pines (Pinus thunbergii)
• 2 redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
• 1 crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica)
• 1 Japanese red pine (Pinus densiflora)
• 1 bunya pine (Araucaria bidwillii)
All of these trees, except the bunya pine on the southern edge of the site, would be removed
to allow for Project construction. The Project would include tree replacement at a 2:1 ratio
and other landscaping.
2.3 PROJECT OPERATIONS
2.3.1 Events
As described above in Section 2.2.2, the Project would include a 12,000-square-foot multi-
purpose room with 1,200 seats. The multi-purpose room would be used for existing activities
and events currently held on the campus and geared toward the campus population, including
annual Dog Days orientations (i.e., new student orientations), student convocation, speakers,
and other large events designed to promote and enhance student success. The multi-purpose
room would not be open for public use. The Project would not result in a change in the
frequency or size of these existing events. Indoor amplified sound base decibel rates of 75 dBA
and spikes of 90 dBA are permitted, and all events would end at the time determined by
University administration based on the Fresno State Police Department’s security assessment,
or as prescribed by University policies and City of Fresno ordinances (Medina pers. comm.
2019). Any outdoor events at the Student Union plaza would not use amplified sound.
2.3.2 Employment Growth
The Project would not result in new employment growth as all programs are already existing
on the campus.
11446 18
DUDEK August 2019
2.4 PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Demolition activities and construction of the Project would be anticipated to commence in
2020/2021 and last for approximately 15 to 18 months. Demolition of the Keats building and
the amphitheater and preparation of the site would take place at the onset of construction,
anticipated in March 2020.
The limits of construction disturbance, including disturbance from construction staging and
laydown areas, are shown by the Project site boundary line in Figure 7. Keats Avenue would be
closed during construction to accommodate material delivery and some construction parking.
Temporary construction parking would be located remote to the Project site, located north
along East Barstow Avenue adjacent to the Sheep building (between North Woodrow Avenue
and North Chestnut Avenue). Construction worker vehicles and equipment would access the
construction site primarily via Maple Avenue and Keats Avenue. Construction hours would be
from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Construction would be performed by qualified contractors. Plans, specifications, and
construction contracts would incorporate stipulations regarding standard California State
University (CSU) requirements and acceptable construction practices, including abatement of
hazardous building materials per regulatory requirements,
3
grading and demolition, safety
measures, vehicle operation and maintenance, excavation stability, erosion control, drainage
alteration, groundwater disposal, traffic circulation, public safety, dust control, and noise
generation.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
This section describes discretionary actions required for Project approval by state and regional
agencies. Discretionary approvals include, but are not limited to, adoption of the IS/MND under
CEQA, approval of the Master Plan revision, and approval of the schematic designs for the
Project, by the CSU Board of Trustees, as summarized in Table 1. Other approvals could also
be necessary as noted below.
3
Hazardous building materials include, but are not limited to, asbestos building materials, lead-based paint, and
other regulated materials such as fluorescent lights and electrical ballasts.
Legend
Work Limits
Construction Fenceline
Construction Vehicular Access
Demolition
Vehicular Access
Maple Ave. entrance to Keats Ave.
Construction Trailer / Staging
Trailer / Staging to occur within work limits
*Potential Option
Trailer / Staging to occur in Keats Building
Notes
Existing tree to be protected
Access road to remain open / accessible
Back of house & loading dock operations for
surrounding buildings to remain accessible
Hatched area indicates portion of Keats Ave. to
be closed with barriers at E/W ends
1
1
2
2
EXHIBIT 'A' - SITE ACCESS PLAN
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 150'-0"
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
FRESNO STATE
NEW STUDENT UNION
*
3
3
Construction Site Access Plan
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 7
SOURCE: Fresno State 2018
12/6/2018 Created by: TFriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND
11446 20
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 1
PROJECT APPROVALS
Authorizing Jurisdiction or Agency
Action
CSU Board of Trustees
Final IS/MND
Adoption
Master Plan Revision
Approval
Schematic Plans for the Project and other related actions and approvals, as necessary
Approval
Division of the State Architect
Accessibility Compliance
Approval
State Fire Marshal
Facility Fire and Life Safety Compliance
Approval
Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) – Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent to Comply with NPDES
Construction Permit
Approval/Enforcement
Air Pollution Control District
Authority to Construct and/or Permits to Operate
Hazardous Materials Removal and Asbestos Demolition
Approval
Rule Compliance
11446 21
DUDEK August 2019
3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Topics with a check mark below would result in a potentially significant impact, but would be
reduced to a level that is clearly less than significant with implementation of Project mitigation
measures identified in this Initial Study.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Aesthetics
Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and
Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and
Housing
Public Services
Recreation Transportation
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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 could have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project could 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)
11446 22
DUDEK August 2019
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing
further is required.
Deborah Adishian-Astone, Vice President for Administration
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then
the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-
11446 23
DUDEK August 2019
significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5), may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program environmental
impact report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration (see Item 1 above). Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
11446 24
DUDEK August 2019
3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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 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 points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
SETTING
The City of Fresno does not contain any designated scenic vistas (City of Fresno 2014b),
though views of distant natural landscape features such as the San Joaquin River and the
foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountain range are available from some areas of the City. View
corridors around the Fresno State campus provide a variety of views into the campus, mostly
from Shaw Avenue south of the Project site. The Project site is not visible from off-campus
locations. The Project site is visible from on-campus locations immediately adjacent to the site,
such as Parking Lot 31, but is not widely visible from other on-campus locations due to
intervening buildings and landscaping. Similarly, views from the Project site are limited to
immediately surrounding development and landscaping.
The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway to the Project site is SR 180 from the
Alta Main Canal near Minkler to the Kings Canyon National Park Boundary near Cedar Grove,
approximately 7 miles southeast of the Project site. A portion of SR 168 is eligible for the State
Scenic Highway Program, from SR 65 east of Clovis to near Huntington Lake, approximately
9.5 miles northeast of the Project site (Caltrans 2018). The City of Fresno General Plan
designates several roads as scenic corridors or boulevards. The closest designated scenic
corridors include Audubon Drive near Herndon Avenue, approximately 2.2 miles from the
Project site, Ashlan Avenue near Maroa Avenue, approximately 3 miles from the Project site,
and North Wishon Avenue near West Shaw Avenue, approximately 3.2 miles from the Project
site.
11446 25
DUDEK August 2019
The Project site is located in a relatively level, central part of the Fresno State campus. The
core of the campus is dominated by the academic and administrative functions, with elements
such as housing, athletics, and events on the periphery. Figure 8 shows existing views of the
Project site looking north, east, south, and west.
The site is characterized predominantly by grassy open space, landscape trees, and concrete
sidewalks, with the one-story Keats building located on the northern portion of the site. The
existing amphitheater and stage occupy the eastern portion of the site. An access road for the
outdoor amphitheater and music building also runs through the northern portion of the site.
Surrounding buildings are relatively low in height (one to two stories). The Henry Madden
Library is an exception, which is four stories and 70 feet tall. The site is primarily surrounded
by academic uses to the north, east, and south. Two surface parking lots are located to the
west of the site. Student housing is located beyond these parking lots in the southwest corner
of the campus, though views from this student housing are obstructed by landscape trees in the
parking lots.
Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the Project site are primarily from surrounding
buildings and lampposts in the parking lot to the west and along concrete sidewalks, as well as
car headlights from vehicular traffic entering and exiting the parking lot. Existing sources of
glare in the Project vicinity include light reflected from building and car windows.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact)
As described above, there are no designated scenic vistas in the City and the Project
site does not offer high-quality scenic views due to its relatively flat terrain and
developed nature of the surrounding environment. Due to the lack of scenic vistas or
views in the vicinity of the Project site, the Project would not obstruct such views.
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on scenic vistas.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway? (No Impact)
The nearest state scenic highway to the Project site is SR 180, approximately 7 miles
east of the site, and the nearest City-designated scenic corridors are approximately 2 to
3 miles from the site. Due to the distance as well as the presence of buildings, trees, and
other structures that intervene with the line of sight, the Project would not be visible
from any state scenic highways or local scenic corridors. Therefore, the Project would
have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Source: Only if non Dudek photos, change color in layout to Gray 60%
Date: 12/10/2018 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND\Figure08_SitePhotos.mxd
Photo 1: Looking North toward Keats Building Photo 2: Looking East toward Amphitheater
Photo 3: Looking South towards Keats Avenue Photo 4: Looking West from Stage
Existing Views of the Project Site
New Student Union Project
FIGURE 8
11446 27
DUDEK August 2019
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than
Significant)
Upon completion of construction, the long-term visual character of the project would
be established, which would consist of the new building with its architectural design, and
associated landscaping. The Project would result in the construction of a new building
on a site that is currently open space, which would change the visual character of the
Project site. However, the new building and plaza created by the Project would be
consistent with the other academic and administrative buildings, which surround the
Project site. Surrounding buildings are the Henry Madden Library, University Student
Union, Speech Arts, Music, Old Music, and the Student Health Center. The maximum
height of the new Student Union building would be the same as the existing Henry
Madden Library building located approximately 300 feet west of the site. While the new
building would be larger than the Keats building previously occupying the site, the new
building would display a comparable bulk and scale as other nearby existing buildings.
In addition, 68 of the 69 existing ornamental trees on the Project site would be
removed as part of the Project, some of which are large and mature. The Project would
include tree replacement at a 2:1 ratio, as well as other landscaping. Thus, the Project
would result in an increase in ornamental plantings on the Project site, which would not
degrade visual character or quality of the site and surroundings.
While the Project would change the existing character of the site from predominantly
landscaped open space to a new building, the building would be designed to complement
existing surrounding architecture and would be visually compatible in scale and massing
to the surrounding buildings to create a more unified character. Design elements,
materials, glazing, and color selection for the facility’s exterior would be selected to
create cohesive qualities between the new building and adjacent campus buildings. The
Project would include a new plaza in place of the existing Keats building which would
connect to open space/plaza areas to the north of the Project site, further unifying the
space.
As Project components would be visually compatible in scale and massing with existing
surrounding buildings and facilities and congruous with the academic and administrative
uses immediately surrounding the Project site in the campus core, the visual character
of the Project area as experienced by viewers in the immediate vicinity of the site would
not substantially change. As the Project would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character and quality of the site and surrounding area, impacts would be less than
significant.
11446 28
DUDEK August 2019
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant)
As described above, existing lighting on the Project site consists of exterior building
lighting and lighting along walkways. The Project would generate new sources of light
and glare on the Project site in the form of external building lighting and additional
reflective surfaces, such as windows. The introduction of light and glare from the new
Student Union building would be negligible relative to existing conditions, given that the
Project vicinity is the developed campus core, which contains existing external nighttime
lighting and reflective surfaces, including building exterior lighting, parking lot and
sidewalk lighting, vehicle headlights, and windows. Moreover, exterior lighting would
adhere to LEED–NC guidelines for light pollution reduction, which would minimize light
trespass and glare from the building and site. Therefore, Project impacts associated with
light and glare would be less than significant.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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
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?
11446 29
DUDEK August 2019
SETTING
The Project site is located in the core of the existing Fresno State campus. There are no lands
designated or zoned for agricultural use or subject to Williamson Act contracts on or adjacent
to the Project site (California Department of Conservation 2016). The Project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(California Department of Conservation 2018). Additionally, there are no active agricultural
operations on the Project site or adjacent areas. The closest agricultural land is located
approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the site, near the intersection of Barstow Avenue and
Woodrow Avenue, including Fresno State agricultural facilities as well as off-campus farmland.
Additionally, no forest or timberlands are present on or adjacent to the Project site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact)
The Project site is not located in an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. The Project would not affect agricultural operations in off-site and
off-campus locations approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no
impacts to agricultural lands or agricultural operations would result with construction
and operation of the Project.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
No land zoned for agricultural use or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract is located
on or near the Project site; therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural
zoning or Williamson Act contracts.
11446 30
DUDEK August 2019
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
(No Impact)
and
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? (No Impact)
As there is no forest land or timberland located on or near the Project site, the Project
would have no impact on forest or timberland. The Project also would not conflict with
land zoned as forest land or timberland.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact)
As previously discussed, the Project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There is no farmland or forest land located
in the vicinity of the Project site; therefore, the Project would have no impact on
agricultural or forest land.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
11446 31
DUDEK August 2019
SETTING
The Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which includes
Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and is within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD adopted the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
(GAMAQI), which advises lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts,
including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance (SJVAPCD 2015).
These thresholds are described below.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI has established emissions-based thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants
(SJVAPCD 2015), which are depicted in Table 2. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O
3
),
nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM
10
), particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM
2.5
), and lead. As shown in Table 2,
the SJVAPCD has established significance thresholds for construction emissions and operational
permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities, and it recommends evaluating impact
significance for these categories separately.
TABLE 2
SJVAPCD CEQA SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Construction Emissions
(tons per year)
Operational Emissions (tons per year)
Permitted Equipment
and Activities
Non-Permitted Equipment
and Activities
ROG
10
10
10
NO
x
10
10
10
CO
100
100
100
SO
x
27
27
27
PM
10
15
15
15
PM
2.5
15
15
15
Source: SJVAPCD 2015.
In addition to the annual emissions mass thresholds described in Table 2, the SJVAPCD has also
established screening criteria to determine whether a project would result in a CO hotspot at
affected roadway intersections (SJVAPCD 2015). If neither of the following criteria are met at
any of the intersections affected by the project, the project would result in no potential to
create a violation of the CO standard:
• A traffic study for the project indicates that the level of service (LOS) on one or more
streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E
or F.
11446 32
DUDEK August 2019
• A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing
LOS F on one or more streets or intersections in the project vicinity.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for combined toxic air contaminant
(TAC) emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources (SJVAPCD
2015). Projects that have the potential to expose the public to TACs in excess of the following
thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:
• Probability of contracting cancer for the maximally exposed individual equals or exceeds
20 in 1 million people.
• Hazard index
4
for acute and chronic non-carcinogenic TACs equals or exceeds 1 for the
maximally exposed individual.
Odors
As described in the GAMAQI, due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, there are no
quantitative thresholds to determine if potential odors would have a significant impact
(SJVAPCD 2015). Projects must be assessed for odor impacts on a case-by-case basis for the
following two situations:
• Generators: Projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to
locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may
congregate.
• Receivers: Residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for
the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.
The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce
substantial odors, as well as screening distances between these odor sources and receptors.
These are depicted in Table 3.
4
Non-cancer adverse health impact, both for acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health effects, is
measured against a hazard index, which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure
concentration from the project to a published reference exposure level that could cause adverse health effects as
established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The ratio (referred to as the
hazard quotient) of each noncarcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added together to
produce an overall hazard index for that organ system.
11446 33
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 3
SCREENING LEVELS FOR POTENTIAL ODOR SOURCES
Type of Facility
Screening Distance (miles)
Wastewater Treatment Facility
2
Sanitary Landfill
1
Transfer Station
1
Composting Facility
1
Petroleum Facility
2
Asphalt Batch Plant
1
Chemical Manufacturing
1
Fiberglass Manufacturing
1
Painting/Coating (i.e., auto body shop)
1
Food Processing Facility
1
Feed Lot/Dairy
1
Rendering Plant
1
Source: SJVAPCD 2015.
If a project would result in an odor source and sensitive receptors being located within these
screening distances, additional analysis would be required. For projects involving new receptors
locating near an existing odor source where there is currently no nearby development and for
new odor sources locating near existing receptors, the SJVAPCD recommends the analysis be
based on a review of odor complaints for similar facilities, with consideration also given to local
meteorological conditions, particularly the intensity and direction of prevailing winds. Regarding
the complaint record of the odor source facility (or similar facility), the facility would be
considered to result in significant odors if there has been:
• More than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a 3-year period.
• Three unconfirmed complaints
5
per year averaged over a 3-year period.
Valley Fever
Coccidioidomycosis, also known as Valley Fever, is an infection caused by inhaling spores of
the fungus Coccidioides immitis, which lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil in many parts of
California. Valley Fever is endemic to the Central Valley and the San Joaquin Valley, including
Fresno County. During soil disturbance, the fungal spores can be released into the air. The
spores are too small to be seen by the naked eye, and there is no reliable way to test the
soils for spores (CDPH 2013). Rates of Valley Fever are relatively high in Fresno County; The
Fresno County Department of Public Health reported 101 cases of Valley Fever in 2017
(County of Fresno 2017).
5
An unconfirmed complaint means that either the odor/air contaminant release could not be detected or the
source/facility could not be determined (SJVAPCD 2015).
11446 34
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (Less than Significant)
A project is non-conforming with an air quality plan if it conflicts with or delays
implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan. A project is
conforming if it complies with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, complies
with all proposed control measures that are not yet adopted from the applicable plan(s),
and is consistent with the growth forecasts or directly included in the applicable plan(s).
Zoning changes, specific plans, general plan amendments, and similar land use plan
changes which do not increase dwelling unit density, do not increase vehicle trips, and
do not increase vehicle miles traveled are also deemed to comply with the applicable air
quality plan (SJVAPCD 2015).
The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, such as
Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM
10
Prohibitions). The Project would not involve a change in
zoning and would be consistent with other land uses on campus. In addition, as indicated
in the following discussion in Section 3.3(b), the Project would result in less-than-
significant construction emissions and would not result in long-term adverse air quality
impacts. For long-term operations, the Project would not generate new on-road vehicle
trips. The Project would not conflict with or delay the implementation of the SJVAPCD
Ozone or Particulate Matter Attainment Plans. Based on these considerations, the
Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to conflicts with applicable
air quality plans.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant)
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional
pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the SJVAPCD develops and
implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these
considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant
in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a
cumulatively significant impact on air quality.
A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine whether proposed construction and
operational activities may result in emissions of criteria air pollutants that may cause
exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), or contribute to existing nonattainment of
ambient air quality standards. Pollutants that are evaluated herein include reactive
organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
), which are important because they
are precursors to O
3
, as well as CO, sulfur oxides (SO
x
), PM
10
, and PM
2.5
.
11446 35
DUDEK August 2019
Construction. Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of
pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction
equipment, soil disturbance, and ROG off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul
trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary
substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of
operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission
levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise
ambient air quality impacts.
Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with temporary construction activities were
quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version
2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air
districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant emissions associated with
construction activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential,
commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the Project
land use type and size, construction schedule, and anticipated construction equipment
utilization, were based on information provided by Fresno State, or default model
assumptions if Project specifics were unavailable.
Implementation of the Project would generate air pollutant emissions from entrained
dust, off-road equipment, vehicle emissions, and architectural coatings. Entrained dust
results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and
movement of soil, resulting in PM
10
and PM
2.5
emissions. The Project would be required
to comply with applicable Rules under SJVAPCD Regulation VIII to control dust
emissions generated during grading activities. Standard construction practices that
would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active sites
twice per day, depending on weather conditions. Internal combustion engines used by
construction equipment, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would
result in emissions of ROG, NO
x
, CO, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
. The application of architectural
coatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes would also
produce ROG emissions; however, the contractor would be required to procure
architectural coatings from a supplier in compliance with the requirements of
SJVAPCD’s Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings).
Table 4 presents the estimated maximum annual emissions generated during
development of the Project, including demolition of the existing uses on-site. Details of
the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.
11446 36
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Year
ROG
NO
x
CO
SO
x
PM
10
PM
2.5
tons per year
2020
0.27
2.53
2.03
0.00
0.21
0.16
2021
0.64
0.80
0.77
0.00
0.06
0.04
Maximum Annual Emissions
0.64
2.53
2.03
0.00
0.21
0.16
SJVAPCD Threshold
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO
x
= oxides of nitrogen; PM
10
= coarse particulate matter; PM
2.5
= fine particulate matter; SJVAPCD = San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SO
x
= sulfur oxides; ROG = reactive organic gases
See Appendix A for complete results.
Construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod and include demolition of the existing uses.
As shown in Table 4, the Project would not exceed the annual significance threshold
established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, construction impacts of the Project would be
less than significant.
Operations. Operation of the Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from
area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment) and
energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). The existing Keats
building to be demolished also generates criteria air pollutants from these sources. In
addition, the Project would also include installation of a 400-kV diesel emergency
generator to serve the new building. CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions
from these operational sources for the Project and existing Keats building for
operational year 2022 and existing conditions 2018, respectively. Notably, the Project
would not result in new on-road vehicle trips, so mobile sources were not included in
the emissions inventory. Table 5 summarizes the area and energy source emissions of
criteria pollutants that would be generated by the Project and existing building to be
demolished, and compares the net increase in emissions to SJVAPCD operational
thresholds. Table 6 depicts the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the
routine testing and maintenance of the proposed emergency generator.
11446 37
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS – NON-PERMITTED SOURCES
Emissions Source
ROG
NO
x
CO
SO
x
PM
10
PM
2.5
tons per year
Proposed Project
Area
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.01
0.09
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.01
Total Project Emissions
0.38
0.09
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.01
Existing Keats Building
Area
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Existing Emissions
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Net Increase (Project minus Existing)
0.34
0.08
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.01
SJVAPCD Threshold
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO
x
= oxides of nitrogen; PM
10
= coarse particulate matter; PM
2.5
= fine particulate matter; SJVAPCD = San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SO
x
= sulfur oxides; ROG = reactive organic gases
See Appendix A for complete results.
Totals may not sum due to rounding. Annual emissions results are based on CalEEMod. Project emissions are based on the “Mitigated”
CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate LEED Gold and a 20% lighting energy reduction based on installation of high-efficiency lighting in all
outdoor areas, even though implementation of these measures would not be considered actual mitigation.
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS – PERMITTED SOURCES
Emissions Source
ROG
NO
x
CO
SO
x
PM
10
PM
2.5
tons per year
Emergency Diesel Generator
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Permitted Source Emissions
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
SJVAPCD Threshold
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO
x
= oxides of nitrogen; PM
10
= coarse particulate matter; PM
2.5
= fine particulate matter; SJVAPCD = San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SO
x
= sulfur oxides; ROG = reactive organic gases
See Appendix A for complete results.
Emergency diesel generator emissions were estimated using CalEEMod for a 400-kV engine (about 430 horsepower) assuming routine testing
and maintenance of up to 50 hours per year per the California Air Resources Board air toxic control measure for stationary compression-
ignition engines.
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, Project operations would not exceed the annual
significance thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, operational impacts of
the Project would be less than significant.
The SJVAB is a nonattainment area for O
3
, PM
10
, and PM
2.5
under the NAAQS and/or
CAAQS. The exceedance of these air quality standards in the SJVAB is the result of
11446 38
DUDEK August 2019
cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and
industrial facilities, and other emissions sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or
their precursors (i.e., ROG and NO
x
for O
3
) potentially contribute to air quality
violations. As indicated in Table 4 through Table 6, annual construction and operational
emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance
thresholds. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with the SJVAPCD Ozone
Attainment Plans, or the PM
10
or PM
2.5
Attainment Plan, which address the cumulative
emissions in the SJVAB. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants and impacts would be
less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Less than Significant)
The SJVAPCD has adopted thresholds for TAC emissions to sensitive receptors: cancer
risks and non-cancer health effects (acute and chronic). These impacts are addressed on
a localized rather than regional basis and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified
for the Project. SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI defines sensitive receptors as those that are more
susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large (SJVAPCD 2015).
Sensitive receptor locations may include schools, parks and playgrounds, childcare
centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The Project site is
located within the core of the Fresno State campus and is surrounded by various
academic buildings to the north, east, and south, and a paved parking lot to the west.
The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the on-campus health care center
(about 350 feet to the southwest), on-campus residential housing units (about 560 feet
to the west), off-campus residences located across Shaw Avenue (about 650 feet to the
south), and the University High School (about 700 feet to the southeast).
“Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously
exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year
exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology
(OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. TACs that
would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be diesel particulate
matter, emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-
duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to California Air Resources
Board (CARB) air toxic control measures (ATCMs) to reduce diesel particulate matter
emissions. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the
exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year
exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such
assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the
project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities
(approximately 15 to 18 months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total
30-year exposure period. Regarding long-term operations, the Project would include
installation of a 400-kV diesel emergency generator that would emit diesel particulates
during routine testing and maintenance. The emergency generator would be required to
11446 39
DUDEK August 2019
comply with the CARB ATCM that applies to stationary compression-ignition engines
and would be subject to permitting by the SJVAPCD. Fresno State would be required to
work with the SJVAPCD and provide the necessary emission information to ensure
exhaust TAC exposure from the emergency generator would be less than significant in
order to obtain permits to operate.
Although the Project site is currently developed, as previously discussed, the Project
would be required to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 8021, which requires applicants to
develop, prepare, submit, obtain approval of, and implement a Dust Control Plan that
would reduce fugitive dust impacts to a less-than-significant level for all construction
phases of the project.
The SJVAPCD-approved Dust cControl measures Plan, under SJVAPCD Rule 8021,
would also control the potential release of Valley Fever (Coccidioides immitis) fungal
spores from soil-disturbing construction activities. Furthermore, the Project would be
required to comply with applicable California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
(Cal/OSHA) regulations regarding Valley Fever protection and exposure (8 CCR
Sections 342, 3203, 5141, 5144, and 14300). Compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021 and
Cal/OSHA standards would ensure that fugitive dust impacts related to Valley Fever
exposure would be less than significant.
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues
surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos-containing material
(ACM). ACMs could be encountered during demolition of existing structures,
particularly older structures constructed prior to 1970. Asbestos can also be found in
various building products, including (but not limited to) utility pipes/pipelines. Because
the Project includes demolition of existing structures, the removal of ACMs would be
subject to the asbestos program administered by the SJVAPCD.
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized
high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or
state standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” CO transport is extremely limited
and disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme
meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or
intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Since the Project
would not result in additional long-term traffic, the Project would not contribute to
potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots.
In summary, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or health risks during construction or operations, and this impact would
be less than significant.
11446 40
DUDEK August 2019
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant)
Odors are a form of air pollution that is most obvious to the general public and can
present problems for both the source and surrounding community. Although offensive
odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause concern. Odors
would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during
construction of the Project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable
to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from the tailpipes of construction
equipment. Such odors would be temporary and generally occur at magnitudes that
would not affect substantial numbers of people. With regard to long-term operations,
SJVAPCD has identified typical sources of odor in the GAMAQI, which are depicted in
Table 3 above. The Project would not include uses that have been identified by
SJVAPCD as potential sources of objectionable odors. Therefore, Project impacts
associated with odors would be considered less than significant.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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
Wildlife 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 Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state-
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
11446 41
DUDEK August 2019
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
SETTING
The Project site is located in the core of the Fresno State campus and does not connect to
areas of natural open space. According to the Vegetation Communities Map prepared for the
Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Fresno General Plan and
Development Code Update, the Project site is mapped as “Urban” (City of Fresno 2014a). The
site is developed with the existing amphitheater, stage, and Keats building, as well as a paved
access road and concrete sidewalks. Vegetation on the site is limited to a turf lawn area and
ornamental trees and shrubs. No native vegetation or habitats exist on the Project site. The site
does not contain wetlands or other sensitive habitats under federal or state regulations.
Due to the lack of native, sensitive, and wetland habitats on the Project site, special-status plant
and animal species are not likely to occur on site. Dudek conducted a search of the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant
inventory, and federal Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) System to determine
whether special-status plants or wildlife species have been documented near the Project site
(see Appendix B). As shown in Appendix B, none of the special-status plant and wildlife species
with known or potential occurrence in the vicinity of the Project site are expected to occur on
site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As stated above, the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC databases were reviewed to identify the
known or potential occurrences of candidate, sensitive, and special-status species
documented near the Project site. Based on the search results, no special-status plant or
wildlife species are expected to occur on the Project site. Moreover, the site does not
contain habitat expected to support special-status species.
However, the trees on and near the Project site provide potential nesting habitat for
bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and
11446 42
DUDEK August 2019
Game Code (CFGC). As such, nesting may be occurring on the site, or may occur in the
future. Project construction could result in the loss or abandonment of active nests of
birds protected under the MBTA and/or the CFGC, as a result of tree removal or
construction-related noise and disturbance. The loss of an active bird nest protected by
the MBTA and/or CFGC would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would protect active bird nests that could
occur in the disturbance area and reduce the potentially significant impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: To avoid impacts to native migratory birds
protected by the federal MBTA and/or the CFGC, a nesting bird survey shall be
completed by a qualified biologist no earlier than 2 weeks prior to construction
and/or tree removal during the nesting season (February 1–September 30) to
determine if any native migratory birds are nesting on or near the site. If any active
nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer will be determined
by the qualified biologist and consultation with CDFW will be sought, if necessary.
The nests will be flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and
planned construction activity in the vicinity of the nest. These nests will be avoided
until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active, as determined by
the qualified biologist. Any nesting habitat (i.e., trees) will be removed outside of
the breeding bird season to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If it is infeasible to
remove trees outside of the breeding season, a survey will be performed no
earlier than 1 week prior to removal to determine if active nests are present.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (No Impact)
and
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state- or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(No Impact)
The Project site does not contain riparian habitats, other sensitive natural communities,
or wetlands, and none of these habitats are located near the site. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact on riparian habitats, other sensitive natural communities, or
federally or state-protected wetlands.
11446 43
DUDEK August 2019
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (No
Impact)
Wildlife corridors are pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural
open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation,
other natural obstacles, or manmade obstacles such as urbanization. As stated above,
the Project site is developed, is surrounded by other development, and does not
connect areas of natural open space. The Project site is not part of a wildlife movement
corridor and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the
Project would have no impact on wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
There are no local ordinances or policies of the City of Fresno that would apply to
projects on the Fresno State campus, as the City does not have jurisdiction over CSU
lands. The Project would be constructed entirely on CSU property. Therefore, the
Project would not conflict with local policies. Construction of the Project would include
the removal of 68 ornamental trees, but the Project would replace these trees at a 2:1
ratio and provide other landscape plantings on the site. Therefore, no impacts related to
conflicts with policies for the protection of biological resources would result with
implementation of the Project.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact)
The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, National Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan, as the Project site does not fall within the boundaries of such an adopted plan.
Therefore, no impact related to conflicts with an adopted plan would result with
implementation of the Project.
11446 44
DUDEK August 2019
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SETTING
The information in this section is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared for
the Project, which is provided in Appendix C. The report included a records search of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the Southern San Joaquin
Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted for the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius, a
search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, Native
American group coordination, and a pedestrian survey of the Project site. Due to the ages of
the Keats building (constructed in 1956) and amphitheater/stage (constructed in 1963), these
structures were also evaluated for potential historical significance and integrity. The results of
the Cultural Resources Technical Report are discussed below.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? (No Impact)
The results of the CHRIS records search indicated that no historic built environment
resources have been previously recorded within the Project site. As a result of the
background research, field survey, and property significance evaluation, the Keats
building and amphitheater/stage appear not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical
Landmarks (CHL), and City of Fresno Local Register of Historic Resources due to a lack
of significant historical associations, architectural merit, and compromised integrity.
Thus, no historical resources are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore,
the Project would have no impact on historical resources.
11446 45
DUDEK August 2019
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated)
According to the CHRIS records search, the Project area contains no previously
recorded archaeological resources. Similarly, the search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File
did not identify any known Native American resources in the Project area. Intensive
pedestrian survey of the Project site by a qualified archaeologist did not encounter any
archaeological resources. In consideration of the severity of past disturbance to native
soils, the topographic setting, and the negative inventory results, the likelihood of
encountering unanticipated significant subsurface archaeological deposits or features is
considered low. Nevertheless, in the event that construction activities were to unearth
previously unidentified archaeological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: CSU shall include a standard inadvertent
discovery clause in every construction contract for this Project, which requires
that in the event that an archaeological resource is discovered during
construction (whether or not an archaeologist is present), all soil disturbing
work within 100 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the find and make a recommendation for how to proceed. For an
archaeological resource that is encountered during construction, the campus
shall:
• Retain a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the resource has
potential to qualify as a historical resource or a unique archaeological
resource as outlined in CEQA (PRC 21083.2).
• If the resource has potential to be a historical resource or a unique
archaeological resource, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with
CSU/Fresno State, shall prepare a research design and archaeological
evaluation plan to assess whether the resource should be considered
significant under CEQA criteria.
• If the resource is determined significant, in consultation with CSU/Fresno
State, a qualified archaeologist will prepare a data recovery plan for
retrieving data relevant to the site’s significance. The data recovery plan
shall be implemented prior to, or during site development (with a 100
foot buffer around the resource). The archaeologist shall also perform
appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it
with the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, and provide for
the permanent curation of recovered materials.
11446 46
DUDEK August 2019
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As the Project site has been substantially disturbed, it is unlikely that unmarked human
burials exist on the site. Nevertheless, in the event that construction activities were to
unearth previously unidentified human remains, implementation of Mitigation Measure
CUL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Should human remains be discovered at any time,
work will halt in that area and procedures set forth in the California Public
Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section
7050.5) will be followed, beginning with notification to CSU/Fresno State and the
County Coroner. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner
will contact the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most
Likely Descendent, who will arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment
of the remains.
3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in a 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?
SETTING
This section addresses effects of the Project on energy consumption during construction and
operation. Existing energy consumption on the Project site includes consumption of fossil fuels
in operation of the Keats building. Fresno State has implemented numerous energy-saving
programs on campus, including conversion of indoor lighting to T-8 fluorescent lamps and
electronic ballasts; installation of occupancy sensors in classrooms, offices, and athletic facilities;
installation of window film to reduce HVAC requirements; and replacement of boilers with
high-efficiency boilers to reduce fuel consumption, among others (Fresno State 2018b).
11446 47
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation? (Less than Significant)
Construction of the Project would require consumption of nonrenewable energy
resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, and
gasoline) for automobiles and construction equipment, and other resources including,
but not limited to, lumber, sand, gravel, asphalt, metals, and water. Construction would
include energy used by construction equipment and other activities at the Project site
(e.g., building demolition, excavation, paving), in addition to the energy used to
manufacture the equipment, materials, and supplies and transport them to the Project
site. Energy for maintenance activities would include that for day-to-day upkeep of
equipment and systems, as well as energy embedded in any replacement equipment,
materials, and supplies. It is expected that nonrenewable energy resources would be
used efficiently during construction and maintenance activities given the financial
implications of inefficient use of such resources. Therefore, the amount and rate of
consumption of such resources during construction and maintenance activities would
not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources.
The Project would not result in an increase in enrollment or employment at Fresno
State; thus, no increase in vehicle miles traveled and, hence, petroleum use, would occur
with Project operation. Operation of the Project would involve consumption of
electricity and natural gas; however, these resources are already consumed on the
Project site, and an incremental increase in the consumption of these resources
associated with Project operation would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or
wasteful use of resources. As described in Section 2.2.2 above, the Project would
include numerous energy-efficiency measures. The Project would be designed to meet
at least LEED Gold equivalent and would, at a minimum, comply with Title 24 Building,
Energy and Green Buildings Standards (California Building Code, Title 24, Parts 4, 6,
and 11). Project lighting, in particular, would be a minimum of 20 percent more
efficient than California Energy Code requirements.
Sustainable design strategies for the new building would include the use of high-
performance glazing and a light-colored, single-ply, thermoplastic roof membrane
over a well-insulated roof assembly to reduce heat gain during the summer. Other
sustainable features would include energy-efficient light fixtures, lighting controls,
and water-conserving plumbing fixtures. A new Direct Digital Control system would
be installed to monitor and operate utilities. The Direct Digital Control system
would be integrated with a total building Energy Management System to monitor
electrical, natural gas, and water usage. Lighting controls would also be integrated.
The building roof would be solar ready and able to support future installation of a
photovoltaic system; however, this is not a part of the Project being analyzed.
11446 48
DUDEK August 2019
Given the foregoing, the Project’s consumption of energy resources would be less
than significant, as it would not represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of
energy resources.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency? (No Impact)
As described above, the new Student Union building’s energy efficiency would, at a
minimum, comply with the California Energy Code and the California Building Code.
While not specifically applicable to the Project, Senate Bill 350 sets ambitious 2030
targets for energy efficiency and renewable electricity, increasing California's renewable
electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. As
described in Section 2.2.2, the new Student Union building would include a solar-ready
roof which could support future installation of a photovoltaic system. As such, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or
energy efficiency, and no related impact would occur.
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
11446 49
DUDEK August 2019
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
SETTING
This section is based on a geotechnical investigation report prepared for the Project (RMA
Geoscience 2018). The scope for this study included review of literature and aerial maps,
subsurface exploration consisting of five exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 51 feet
below the existing grade, laboratory testing of selected samples, and geotechnical evaluation of
the data.
The Project site is located in the central part of the San Joaquin Valley, which comprises the
southern half of the Great Valley geomorphic province. The valley is a westward-tilting trough,
which forms a broad alluvial fan, approximately 200 miles long and 50 to 70 miles wide, where
the eastern flank is broad and gently inclined, as opposed to the western flank, which is
relatively narrow. The Central Valley consists of the Great Valley Sequence comprised of
marine deposits from the Late Jurassic through the Cretaceous, overlain by Cenozoic alluvium
deposited by streams and rivers draining from the mountains, lakes that intermittently covered
parts of the valley floor, and marsh environments. Underlying the Great Valley Sequence are
the Franciscan Assemblage to the west and the Sierra Nevada Batholith to the east. The Project
site is situated on Quaternary fan deposits and older marine sediments that are over 1,000 feet
deep. The ground surface is relatively flat and the surface elevation is approximately 336 feet
above mean sea level.
The nearest active earthquake fault zones (evidence of displacement within the past 11,700
years) are the Nunez Fault and Ortigalita Fault located approximately 57 miles southwest and
63 miles west-southwest, respectively, of the Project site. The Project site is not located within
a fault zone, landslide zone, or liquefaction zone mapped by the California Geological Survey
(CGS 2018).
Based on information obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey online database (USDA 2018), the Project
site is mapped as Ramona loam (Rc; approximately 65 percent of the site) and Ramona loam,
hard substratum (Re; approximately 35 percent of the site). The Ramona series consists of
well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured old granitic alluvium (USDA
1971). The soil profile at the Project site generally consists of a silty clay fill layer extending
11446 50
DUDEK August 2019
from the surface to a depth of approximately 3 to 5 feet, underlain by laterally discontinuous
native layers of relatively clean sand, sandy silt, silty sand, clayey silt, and silty clay to the
maximum depth explored of 51 feet below the existing ground surface. The granular soils
generally had a relative consistency of medium dense to very dense, while the fine grained soils
had a relative consistency of stiff to hard.
Groundwater was not encountered in exploratory borings. According to recent groundwater
data from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), as described in the
geotechnical investigation, the depth to groundwater is estimated to be approximately 130 feet
in the vicinity of the Project site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (No Impact)
The Project site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault
Zone for fault rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act and no faults are known to pass through the site. As described
above, the nearest active earthquake fault zones are located approximately 57
miles southwest and 63 miles west-southwest of the Project site. Therefore, no
impact related to fault rupture would occur as a result of the Project.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant)
and
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than
Significant)
As with most areas within the State of California, the Project site and
surrounding region would be exposed to ground shaking from seismic events on
local and regional faults. Although the Project site is located roughly 60 miles
from the nearest active earthquake fault, moderate to strong ground shaking
may occur at the Project site. The peak earthquake ground acceleration adjusted
for site class effects (PGA
M
) has been determined to be 0.300 percent of gravity
(g).
11446 51
DUDEK August 2019
Potential secondary seismic hazards that could affect the Project include
liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement, and differential
compaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground
vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal
to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely
lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is
dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the
soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to
occur, three conditions should exist: low-density, sand/sandy soils, a shallow
groundwater depth typically shallower than 50 feet, and seismic shaking from a
nearby large-magnitude earthquake. Since the depth to groundwater at the
Project site is approximately 130 feet and loose, low-density sand layers are not
expected within the exploration depth of approximately 51 feet, there is a
negligible risk of liquefaction occurring at the Project site during a design-level
seismic event.
Seismically induced settlement occurs most frequently in areas underlain by
loose, granular sediments. Damage as a result of seismically induced settlement is
most dramatic when differential settlement occurs in areas with large variations
in the thickness of underlying sediments. Settlement caused by ground shaking is
often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement.
Taking into account the consistency of the soils in the upper 51 feet, the PGA
M
of 0.300g, and the distance to the nearest active fault (approximately 57 miles
from the Project site), there is a low risk of any significant seismic settlement
occurring at the Project site during a design-level seismic event. For design
purposes, it is estimated that the seismically induced settlement would be less
than 0.25 inches during a design-level seismic event.
These results and other recommendations of the geotechnical report would be
incorporated into the Project structural design. Moreover, final design of the
Project would comply with the CBC, which includes specific provisions for
structural seismic safety. The Project would also be subject to review and
recommendations by the CSU Seismic Review Board. Therefore, with the above
provisions, the impact of the Project related to seismic ground shaking and other
secondary seismic hazards would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides? (No Impact)
The majority of the campus and the City of Fresno consists of flat topography
within the Central Valley with no risk of large landslides. The only areas within
the City that have the potential for landslides are along the steep banks of rivers,
creeks, or drainage basins such as the San Joaquin River bluff and along unlined
basins and canals throughout the City (City of Fresno 2014a). The topography of
the Project site is relatively flat and no steep slopes are located on or near the
site. Thus, the Project site is not susceptible to landslides and no impact would
occur.
11446 52
DUDEK August 2019
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less
than Significant)
Project construction would include cut and fill grading, trenching, and removing trees
and other vegetation. These activities would include ground disturbance, which would
potentially result in short-term soil erosion. However, because the Project footprint is
greater than 1 acre, it would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements for construction site stormwater discharges, and
would comply with those requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) is required to be prepared and implemented under these requirements, which
includes appropriate erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site
preparation, grading, construction, and post-construction. Implementation of the
SWPPP for the Project would minimize short-term erosion impacts. Long-term impacts
of the Project would not result in substantial erosion, as the soils would be covered by
buildings, pavement, vegetation, and landscaping. Therefore, Project impacts related to
erosion would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less
than Significant)
As described above, the liquefaction potential at the Project site is considered negligible,
and seismically induced settlement is estimated to be minimal (i.e., less than 0.25 inches).
The site is not located near steep slopes that would be susceptible to landslides. Lateral
spreading, which is commonly associated with liquefaction and occurs when a
continuous layer of soil liquefies at depth and the soil layers above move toward an
unsupported face, would also not be expected to occur due to the site’s relatively flat
topography and negligible liquefaction potential. Thus, the Project site is not located on
a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would be expected to become unstable.
Moreover, compliance with the CBC would further reduce potential risks related to soil
stability; therefore, associated impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property? (Less than Significant)
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content;
they shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. The
geotechnical field exploration and expansion index test results indicate that the near
surface soils at the Project site have a low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts
related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
11446 53
DUDEK August 2019
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact)
The Project would connect to sewer facilities and would not include septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? (Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
The Project site is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic
Province (CGS 2002). This geomorphic province is characterized by a depositional basin
that has received sediments since the Jurassic Period (approximately 160 million years
ago) and is split into the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in
the south, where the Project site is located (CGS 2002). The Project site is underlain by
Pleistocene (approximately 2.58 million years ago to 11,800 years ago) non-marine
deposits (Matthews and Burnett 1965).
A geotechnical report that included borings up to a depth of 51 feet within the Project
area reported artificial fill (reworked native) ranging from 3 to 5 feet below the ground
surface (BGS; RMA Geoscience 2018). Below the fill, fine-grained sand, silt, and clay
lenses, indicative of alluvial deposition, were noted. Depending on the depth, sediments
were orange-yellowish brown to grayish brown and were moderately indurated to
indurated (RMA Geoscience 2018).
An expedited paleontological records search was requested from the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) on November 30, 2018, and the results were
received on December 06, 2018. Not citing specific geological mapping, the LACM
stated that the entire Project area is underlain by the Pleistocene Riverbank Formation,
but also mentioned that the area could be underlain by a veneer of soil over Holocene
(less than 12,000 years ago) younger Quaternary alluvium (McLeod 2018). While no
paleontological localities were reported from within the Project area, the LACM
reported a fossil proboscidean (i.e., trunked mammal) from Pleistocene-age deposits
northwest of the Project area on the south side of Ash Slough, northeast of Chowchilla
(McLeod 2018), approximately 40 miles northwest of the Project site. The LACM
recommended paleontological monitoring of substantial excavations within the Project
area and sediment sampling to determine the microfossil potential.
Several Pleistocene fossil localities are known from the City of Fresno and Fresno
County. Dundas et al. (2009) reported that mammoth (Mammuthus sp.) specimens were
recovered during a Caltrans project in the City of Fresno. Specimens consisted of tusk,
pelvis, femur, molar, and rib fragments from approximately 6.5 feet BGS. In his
compilation of Pleistocene fossil vertebrate localities from California, Jefferson (1991)
reported several localities from Fresno County from the same or similar sediments that
11446 54
DUDEK August 2019
directly underlie the Project area or at depth. Fossils reported include fish
(Osteichthyes), turtle (Clemmys marmorata), snakes (Charina sp. cf. C. bottae and Crotalus
sp.), bird (Gavia sp.), mole (Scapanus latimanus), rabbit (Lepus sp.), gopher (Thomomys
sp.), rodents (Heteromyidae, Neotoma sp., and Microtus sp.), horse (Equus sp.), camel
(Camelops sp.), elk (Cervus sp.), deer (Odocoileus sp.), bison (Bison sp.), mastodon
(Mammut sp.), coyote (Canis latrans), fox (Vulpes sp.), bear (Urocyon sp.), and badger
(Taxidea sp.) (Jefferson 1991).
No paleontological resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the
institutional records search and desktop geological review; however, several Pleistocene
fossil localities have been documented from Fresno County. The Project is not
anticipated to be underlain by unique geological features. While the Project area
contains disturbed sediments up to 5 feet BGS, intact paleontological resources may be
present below the original layer of fill. Given the proximity of past fossil discoveries in
the surrounding area and the potential for impacts to underlying paleontological
resources, the Project site is moderately to highly sensitive for supporting
paleontological resources. In the event that intact paleontological resources are located
on the Project site, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the
Project, such as grading during site preparation and large-diameter (i.e., greater than 2
feet) drilling would have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site, which would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to
paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to commencement of any grading activity
on site, CSU/Fresno State shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a
Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed
project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) and shall outline where excavations below a
depth of 5 feet would occur. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the
preconstruction meeting and be on site during all rough grading and other
significant ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed Pleistocene
alluvial deposits below a depth of 5 feet. These deposits may be encountered at
any depth below any fill materials (i.e., road base). In the event that
paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the
paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to
allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped
off with a 50-foot-radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is
completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence
in the area of the find. A final monitoring report, including the results of the
monitoring and description of any paleontological resources recovered shall be
submitted to CSU/Fresno State and any appropriate City or County agencies.
11446 55
DUDEK August 2019
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
SETTING
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature,
precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Gases that trap heat
in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The greenhouse effect traps heat
in the troposphere through a threefold process: (1) short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is
absorbed by the Earth; (2) the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave
radiation; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this
long-wave radiation into space and back toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave
(thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse
effect.
Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
), nitrous oxide, O
3
, and water
vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO
2
, CH
4
, and nitrous oxide, occur naturally and are emitted to
the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO
2
and CH
4
are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO
2
are largely
byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion, whereas CH
4
results mostly from off-gassing associated
with agricultural practices and landfills. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-
absorption potential than CO
2
, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, which are associated with
certain industrial products and processes (California Climate Action Team 2006).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere
relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated
radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to
that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO
2
; therefore,
GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO
2
equivalent (MT CO
2
e).
Regarding impacts from GHGs, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) considers GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008);
therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG
11446 56
DUDEK August 2019
emissions from a project would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
global atmosphere. The SJVAPCD has adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which
directed the Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance documents to assist land use
and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. The
SJVAPCD has adopted the Guidance for Valley Land
‐
Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission
Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009a) and the policy Addressing GHG Emission
Impacts for Stationary Source Projects under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD
2009b). The guidance and policy rely on the use of performance-based standards, otherwise
known as Best Performance Standards (BPS) to assess significance of project-specific GHG
emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process. However,
SJVAPCD’s adopted BPS are specifically directed at reducing GHG emissions from stationary
sources; therefore, the adopted BPS would not generally be applicable to the Project. The
SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority in establishing its own process and
guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change.
SJVAPCD supports the use of interim thresholds as established by the CAPCOA when adopted
thresholds are not applicable (SJVAPCD 2009c). As such, for the purposes of establishing a
quantitative threshold for GHG emissions, the interim threshold of 900 MT CO
2
e per year
established by CAPCOA is used herein. This threshold is consistent with California’s climate‐
stabilization target (identified in Assembly Bill 32).
DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant)
Construction. Construction of the Project would result in GHG emissions, which
would primarily be associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road
vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. The SJVAPCD recommends that construction
emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG reduction
measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG
reduction strategies. Thus, the total construction GHG emissions were calculated,
amortized over 30 years, summed with the operational emissions, and compared with
the CAPCOA GHG significance threshold of 900 MT CO
2
e per year. Amortized GHG
emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of
15 MT CO
2
e.
A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding
phasing, equipment utilized during each phase, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker
vehicles—is included in Appendix A.
Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the Project.
CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from grid electricity usage, solid waste,
and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and
water/wastewater conveyance) for the Project, as well as for the existing Keats building
to be demolished. GHG emissions associated with the routine testing of the proposed
11446 57
DUDEK August 2019
emergency generator were also quantified with CalEEMod. Notably, the Project would
not result in new on-road vehicle trips, so mobile sources were not included in the
emissions inventory.
Table 7 summarizes the annual GHG emissions that would be generated by
development of the Project, as well as emissions of existing building to be demolished.
Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
CO
2
CH
4
N
2
O
CO
2
e
metric tons per year
Proposed Project
Area
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
280.26
0.01
0.00
281.76
Stationary
8.19
0.00
0.00
8.22
Waste
21.11
1.25
0.00
52.30
Water
7.96
0.07
0.00
10.08
Total Project Emissions
317.51
1.33
0.00
352.35
Existing Keats Building
Area
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
33.16
0.00
0.00
33.34
Waste
1.95
0.12
0.00
4.84
Water
0.76
0.01
0.00
0.97
Total Existing Emissions
35.87
0.12
0.00
39.15
Net Increase (Project minus Existing)
281.64
1.21
0.00
313.20
Amortized Construction Emissions
15.17
Net Increase Operational Emissions + Amortized Construction Total
328.37
Notes: CO
2
= carbon dioxide; CH
4
= methane; N
2
O = nitrous oxide; CO
2
e = carbon dioxide equivalent
See Appendix A for complete results.
The values shown for the Project and existing use scenarios are from CalEEMod and may not sum due to rounding. Project annual emissions are
based on the “Mitigated” CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate LEED Gold and a 20% lighting energy reduction based on installation of high-
efficiency lighting in all outdoor areas, even though implementation of these measures would not be considered actual mitigation. Existing
emissions were based on the “historical” energy intensity factors in CalEEMod based on the age of the Keats building. For both the Project and
existing scenario, the CO
2
intensity factor was adjusted to match PG&E’s 2016 Power Content Label of 33% renewables. The “Stationary” source
represents the emergency diesel generator to be installed under the Project, with emissions estimated using CalEEMod for a 400-kV engine
(about 430 horsepower) assuming routine testing and maintenance of up to 50 hours per year per the CARB ATCM for stationary compression-
ignition engines.
Table 7 indicates that the Project would result in a net GHG-emission increase of
approximately 328 MT CO
2
e per year from all sources, which would be below the
screening GHG threshold of 900 MT CO
2
e per year. This would represent a less-than-
significant cumulative GHG impact.
11446 58
DUDEK August 2019
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant)
Under the SJVAPCD’s CEQA thresholds for GHGs, a project would not have a
significant GHG impact if it is consistent with an applicable plan to reduce GHG
emissions, and a CEQA-compliant analysis was completed for the GHG reduction plan.
At this time, Fresno State has not adopted a Climate Action Plan or similar GHG
reduction strategy that would be applicable to the Project. Fresno State is, however,
committed to taking the necessary steps in reducing GHG emissions through
implementation of a variety of sustainable practices. Initiatives that would help Fresno
State reduce its GHG emissions include: energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects, energy saving programs, integrating design construction practices, “greening”
interiors development, working towards a waste diversion goal of 100 percent,
integrating low water vegetation in outdoor spaces, and retooling campus water
infrastructure to increase water efficiency. The Project would be constructed to meet at
least LEED Gold and would, at a minimum, comply with Title 24 Building, Energy and
Green Buildings Standards. Project lighting, in particular, would be a minimum of 20
percent more efficient than California Energy Code requirements.
While not directly applicable to the Project because it does not account for Fresno
State’s future growth projections, the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) Regional
Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHGs from the land use and transportation sectors and was
adopted after completion of a Program EIR. CARB approved the RTP/SCS in 2015.
Senate Bill 375 requires FCOG to demonstrate in its SCS that it will reduce car and light
truck GHG emissions by 5 percent per capita by 2020, and 10 percent by 2035. The
FCOG SCS has projected to exceed the goal by committing to a 9-percent reduction by
2020 and 11-percent reduction by 2035 (FCOG 2015). Notably, FCOG has drafted the
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy 2018-2042 (2018
RTP/SCS), which has not yet been adopted (FCOG 2017a). The GHG emission goals in
the FCOG RTP/SCS are based on demographic data trends and projections that include
household, employment, and total population statistics. The Project would not generate
an increase in population, employment or traffic. Therefore, the Project would not
conflict with the FCOG RTP/SCS.
The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, provides a
framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and
other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. The
Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used
for project-level evaluations. Relatedly, in the Final Statement of Reasons for the
Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)
observed that “[t]he [Scoping Plan] may not be appropriate for use in determining the
significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the
future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping
Plan” (CNRA 2009). Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state
regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB
11446 59
DUDEK August 2019
and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping
Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-
GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid,
electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., low-carbon fuel
standard), among others. To the extent that these regulations are applicable to the
Project, the Project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the
Scoping Plan to the extent required by law.
Regarding consistency with post-2020 statewide targets, specifically Senate Bill 32 (goal
of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive
Order S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-
year analysis. However, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan
puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the
specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). The 2017 Scoping Plan Update
reaffirms that the state is on the path toward achieving the 2050 objective of reducing
GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 after the adoption of Senate Bill 32 and
Assembly Bill 197 in 2016 (CARB 2017). As discussed previously, the Project would
result in less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with the state’s
trajectory toward future GHG reductions. With respect to future GHG targets under
Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal
interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are
necessary, beyond the Assembly Bill 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction
targets in 2030 and in 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides
evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory
toward meeting these future GHG targets.
Based on the preceding considerations, the Project would not conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs
and related impacts would be less than significant.
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
11446 60
DUDEK August 2019
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within ¼ miles 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
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?
SETTING
Searches of the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and
California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database indicated no
contamination on the Project site. The Project site was the subject of a School Investigation
evaluated by DTSC in 2006. The evaluation did not identify any contamination on the Project
site and DTSC issued a letter concluding that “No Action” was required (DTSC 2006).
The federal government banned consumer use of lead-based paint (LBP) in 1978 and many, but
not all, ACMs were banned in construction products in 1989. As the structures on the Project
site were constructed between 1956 and 1963, prior to the ban of these materials, it is possible
that they contain LBP or ACMs. In addition, other regulated materials such as fluorescent lights
may be present.
11446 61
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than
Significant)
The Project would result in a slight increase in the routine use of hazardous materials.
The Project would include use of heavy equipment for demolition, grading, excavation,
and construction. Fueling and maintenance of such equipment could result in incidental
spills of petroleum products and hazardous materials in construction staging areas.
However, such incidental spills would likely be minor and would be minimized through
implementation of standard best management practices (BMPs) included in a NPDES-
mandated SWPPP during construction. Relevant BMPs would typically include creation
of designated fueling and maintenance areas located not in proximity to drainages and
equipped with temporary spill containment booms, absorbent pads, and petroleum
waste disposal containers. Some hazardous materials use would continue to occur in
association with Project operations, including natural gas for the emergency generator,
fertilizers, cleaning supplies, etc. Use of hazardous materials would be required to meet
all applicable regulations related to the transport, use, and storage of such materials.
Therefore, Project impacts associated with routine transport, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant)
The Project would include demolition activities on Fresno State campus grounds prior
to new construction. Given the age of the structures on site, LBP and ACMs may be
encountered during demolition activities. Project construction would be required to
comply with applicable state regulations regarding LBP work practices, including testing
and abatement. The removal of ACMs would be subject to the Asbestos Program
administered by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which
protects the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos through enforcement of the
Federal Asbestos Standard. The Program includes survey and notification requirements
prior to beginning a project, as well as work practice standards and disposal
requirements (San Joaquin Valley APCD 2012).
Additionally, under California law, fluorescent lamps cannot be disposed as municipal
waste. Fluorescent tubes and bulbs may be managed as universal wastes under Title 22,
Chapter 23 of the California Code of Regulations and are typically recycled. With
adherence to applicable regulations, Project impacts related to removal of hazardous
materials during demolition would be less than significant.
11446 62
DUDEK August 2019
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (Less than Significant)
University High School is located on the Fresno State campus approximately 650 feet
southeast of the Project site. Demolition of the existing building would potentially
involve the handling and disposal of hazardous waste products, including LBP, ACMs,
petroleum products, etc. Handling of such substances would be regulated by federal and
state hazardous materials laws that would minimize the risk of exposure to nearby land
uses, including schools. Therefore, impacts associated with handling hazardous materials
within 0.25 miles of a school would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site that 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)
The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the
“Cortese List”) is a planning document used by state and local agencies and developers
to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of
hazardous materials sites. The Project site is not included on the list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the
Project would have no impact related to the Cortese List.
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 ImpactLess than Significant)
The closest public airport to the Project site is the Fresno Yosemite International
Airport, located approximately 2 miles to the southeast. The Project site is not located
within any designated airport safety zones orthe traffic pattern airport safety zone, but
not within any airport noise contours (City of Fresno 2012FCOG 2018). As such, no
excessive noise impacts would occur. The traffic pattern zone is the portion of the
airport influence area routinely overflown by aircraft, where the airport accident risk
level is considered to be low and land use restrictions are relatively minimal, according
to the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (FCOG 2018). Therefore,
no impacts associated with aircraft-related safety hazards or excessive noise impacts
would occur in associationbe less than significant with construction and operation of the
Project.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
In the event of an emergency evacuation, the Fresno State campus has six designated
assembly points on campus. The closest on-campus assembly point to the Project site is
11446 63
DUDEK August 2019
the grass area south of the Education building, located south of the Project site between
Keats and Shaw avenues (Fresno State 2018a). Access to this assembly area would not
be impaired as a result of construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, no
impacts related to interference with emergency response or evacuation plans would
occur.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? (No Impact)
The Fresno State campus, including the Project site, is not located on or adjacent to
wildlands. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to exposure to wildland
fire hazards.
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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 decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on or off site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on or off
site?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
11446 64
DUDEK August 2019
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
SETTING
The principal surface water drainages in the City of Fresno are the San Joaquin River, north of
the Project site, and the Kings River, south of the Project site, which drain the western slopes
of the Sierra Nevada. Floodwater from the Kings River is diverted to the San Joaquin River via
the James Bypass, a human-made canal. Three dams control flows on the two rivers. The Friant
and Mendota Dams are located on the San Joaquin River. These two dams provide some flood
control; however, these two dams were not designed for the purpose of flood control. The
Pine Flat Dam was built on the Kings River for the purpose of flood control. In addition to the
dams on the two rivers, there are reservoirs and detention basins that have been constructed
to prevent flooding. These facilities include the Redbank Dam and the Redbank‐Fancher Creeks
Flood Control Project. This project consists of two dams (Big Dry Creek Dam and Fancher
Creek Dam), three detention basins (Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, and Alluvial Drain detention
basins), and canals to convey discharges in and around the City of Fresno. These facilities were
designed to protect developed areas from a 200‐year storm event (City of Fresno 2014b).
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), the Project site is located in an area of moderate flood hazard, but is not within a
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The site is located within Zone X (shaded), in an area with
a 0.2-percent annual chance of flooding, or 1-percent annual chance of shallow flooding (i.e.,
average depth less than 1 foot).
The Project site is relatively level with approximately 0.8 acres of impervious surface area
(approximately 23 percent of the site). Stormwater runoff at the Project site occurs as sheet
flow, which is transmitted into existing storm drains. These storm drains convey stormwater to
surface water detention basins, which ultimately discharge to groundwater, irrigation canals,
creeks, and the San Joaquin River. The system is designed to detain and infiltrate as much runoff
as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer (FMFCD et al. 2013).
As described in the geotechnical investigation prepared for the Project (RMA GeoScience
2018), according to groundwater data from DWR, recent groundwater data indicates the depth
to groundwater is approximately 130 feet in the vicinity of the Project site. Historical data
derived from wells (State Well IDs 13S20E12H001M and 13S21E07G001M) less than 1.5 miles
to the northeast of the Project site indicate the depth to groundwater on average was
approximately 41 feet deep throughout the 1950s and then declined to a depth of
approximately 110 feet during the 1990s. Over the subsequent years, the data indicate that the
groundwater elevation has declined another 20 feet, with rates as high as 3 feet per year in the
northeastern area, adjacent to the City of Clovis (City of Fresno 2016).
11446 65
DUDEK August 2019
The City is underlain by the Kings Subbasin, which, along with six other subbasins, comprises
the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Kings Subbasin encompasses approximately
1,530 square miles and is in the greater Tulare Lake hydrologic region. The subbasin is generally
bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River, on the west by the Fresno Slough, on the south
by the Kings River and Cottonwood Creek, and on the east by the Sierra foothills. Based on
California DWR Bulletin 118-80, the Kings Subbasin is in a state of critical overdraft and the
future of the groundwater basin has been projected to see continued overdraft conditions (City
of Fresno 2016).
However, the rate of groundwater decline has slowed since 2004 when the City’s first surface
water treatment facility came on line in northeast Fresno, the Northeast Surface Water
Treatment Facility (NESWTF), and when renewed focus on intentional groundwater recharge
operations regained momentum. Since around 2004, groundwater levels stabilized and since
then have generally held level over the last 10 years (City of Fresno 2016). To facilitate the
further reduction of its reliance on groundwater, the City is nearing completion of a new 80-
million-gallon-per-day (mgd) surface water treatment facility in southeast Fresno (i.e., the
Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility [SESWTF]) (Recharge Fresno 2018). The
combination the NESWTF and SESWTF will maximize the use of available surface water and
afford the City with greater water supply reliability, increase operational flexibility, and decrease
the City’s dependency on groundwater supplies (City of Fresno 2016).
The 2015 UWMP indicates that the City of Fresno would have a reliable water supply through
2040 during normal year supply and demand scenarios; single dry year supply and demand
scenarios, and multiple dry year supply and demand scenarios (City of Fresno 2016).
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
(Less than Significant)
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) is responsible for flood
control and stormwater planning and management. As the owner and operator of the
stormwater drainage system, the FMFCD has primary responsibility for implementing
the U.S. Clean Water Act requirements, through a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit, issued by the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The municipal NPDES stormwater permit (or
MS4 permit) was issued to the FMFCD, the cities of Fresno and Clovis, the County of
Fresno, and Fresno State (i.e., the Permittees), by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2013.
The NPDES Permit Program is comprised of pollutant removal in the stormwater basins
and education to avoid storm water pollution; BMPs for commercial, industrial, and new
development stormwater quality control; monitoring to asses stormwater impacts upon
the quality of receiving water; and the preparation of ordinances for adoption by local
governments to enforce storm water quality measures. The FMFCD’s programs include
water conservation efforts through its design and operation of storm water drainage
11446 66
DUDEK August 2019
facilities to detain and retain water from storm events, as well as receive dry season
surface water supplies for groundwater recharge (City of Fresno 2014b).
In addition, a SWQMP was developed pursuant to Order No. R5-2013-0080, as a five-
year management strategy for controlling the discharge of pollutants in stormwater and
urban runoff from Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area Permittees. The SWQMP includes
specific pollution prevention and control practices for Fresno-Clovis urban drainage
system planning, design, construction, and maintenance. The Program also includes
public education to prevent stormwater pollution; specifies Permittee construction,
industrial/commercial, municipal, and new development control practices; procedures to
prevent and respond to illicit discharges and connections; monitoring to assess
stormwater impacts on receiving waters; and program effectiveness assessments, to
evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. These Permittee requirements are designed to
continue to achieve water quality standards and protect beneficial uses of the San
Joaquin River, creeks, and canals. Because the SWQMP documents and describes
actions that the Permittees will undertake to implement the requirements of the MS4
permit, the SWQMP itself is then an enforceable document (FMFCD et al. 2013).
Most recently, the Central Valley RWQCB issued a region-wide MS4 permit in 2016
(Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324) for Permittees in the Central
Valley Region. This permit expires September 30, 2021. The Project would be required
to comply with the Phase 1 MS4 permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2016
and the Fresno-Clovis SWQMP adopted in 2013. The Phase 1 MS4 permit requires
runoff to be treated using LID treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities and
other hydromodification features, to improve stormwater quality. Given the above,
operation of the Project would not violate any water quality standards.
Construction of the Project would result in short-term soil-disturbing activities that
could lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. However, the Project would comply
with NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity, Order No. 99-08-DWQ. The Construction General Permit (CGP) requires the
development and implementation of a SWPPP, which describes BMPs the discharger
would use to protect stormwater runoff. The SWPPP would include appropriate
erosion-control and water-quality-control measures during site preparation, grading,
construction, and post-construction. Implementation of the SWPPP for the Project
would minimize erosion and related impacts on water quality, such that construction-
related impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than Significant)
Water would be supplied to the Project by Fresno State’s groundwater well system.
The campus groundwater system, as well as other local agencies and districts, extract
groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. As the Project site is within the developed
Fresno State campus, it is not located in a groundwater recharge area. The new Student
11446 67
DUDEK August 2019
Union building would continue to be served by the existing potable water infrastructure
on the Project site and by Fresno State’s groundwater well system. Water use on the
Project site would increase by a net of 1.8 million gallons per year with Project
implementation.
While the campus’s groundwater use would increase somewhat with the Project,
groundwater level declines in the Kings Subbasin have decreased substantially since
2004, as water conservation, groundwater recharge, and use of reclaimed water from
surface water treatment facilities has increased substantially. The 2015 UWMP indicates
that the City of Fresno would have a reliable water supply through 2040 during normal
year supply and demand scenarios; single dry year supply and demand scenarios; and
multiple dry year supply and demand scenarios. In addition, in accordance with the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the City and other regional
stakeholders have formed a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to ensure the
continued beneficial use of groundwater supplies. As such, the Project water demand
would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin. The Project’s impacts on groundwater would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
and
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on or off site? (Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated)
There are no natural drainage features on or near the Project site. Construction
activities would entail grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities,
which could temporarily alter surface drainage patterns and increase the
potential for flooding, erosion, or siltation. However, the Project would be
required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would
require implementation of BMPs and erosion control measures, thereby reducing
the effects of construction activities on erosion and drainage patterns.
New drainage infrastructure would be included in the Project to accommodate
stormwater flows and connect the Project to existing storm drain infrastructure.
Once operational, the Project would increase the impervious surface area on the
site from approximately 0.8 acres (23 percent of the site) to approximately 1
acre (29 percent of the site), which would represent an increase in the
impervious surface area of 6 percent. This would be expected to result in an
11446 68
DUDEK August 2019
increase in stormwater runoff of approximately 0.1 cubic feet per second. Such
an increase in runoff volume and rate could result in off-site erosion, siltation of
waterways, and flooding. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure
HYD-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to increased runoff
to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: CSU/Fresno State shall provide
stormwater detention such that post-construction runoff volume and
rate from the Project site is equal to or less than existing conditions.
Fresno State shall include the requirement for stormwater detention in
development or construction contracts for the Project.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated)
As discussed above, post-construction stormwater runoff would increase,
potentially exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems, which would be a potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 described above would reduce
impacts related to increased runoff to less-than-significant levels.
With respect to water quality, as described above in Section 3.10(a), with
implementation of BMPs mandated by the MS4 permit, SWQMP, and
construction-related NPDES permit, water quality impacts associated with
Project construction and operation would be less than significant.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than Significant)
The Project site is not located within a low-lying area that would be inundated
during the failure of an up-gradient water reservoir or dam (RMA GeoScience
2018). The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. As described
above, the Project site is located with flood Zone X with a 0.2-percent annual
chance of flooding or a 1-percent annual chance of flooding with an average
depth of less than 1 foot. Therefore, less-than-significant flood-related impacts
would occur in association with construction and operation of the Project.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? (No Impact)
Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes.
When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches
are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in
response to ground shaking. Tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the
inland location of the Project site and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. In
11446 69
DUDEK August 2019
addition, mudflows are large, rapid masses of mud formed by loose earth and water,
primarily affecting hillsides and slopes of unconsolidated material. No steep slopes that
would be subject to mudflows are located on or near the Project site. Therefore, no
impact related to tsunamis, seiches, or mudflows would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than
Significant)
The SGMA of 2014 is intended to provide for sustainable management of groundwater
basins and to locally manage groundwater basins while minimizing state intervention to
only when necessary. The SGMA requires the creation of GSAs to implement the
SGMA. The deadline to adopt and begin implementation of Groundwater Sustainability
Plans (GSPs) is January 31, 2020.
The North Kings GSA is one of six agencies formed in the Kings Subbasin and includes
the Project site. Through its various surface water resources and several decades of
proactive groundwater recharge activities, this portion of the Kings Subbasin has not
experienced significant overdraft conditions experienced elsewhere in the basin. While
the GSP for the North Kings Subbasin is currently being developed, as described above
in Section 3.10(b), the Project water demand would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project
would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Furthermore, the
Project would be required to comply with the Phase 1 MS4 permit requiring runoff to
be treated using LID treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities and other
hydromodification features, to improve stormwater quality, and NPDES CGP requiring
the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which describes BMPs to control
erosion and water quality. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant
impact as it would not conflict with a water quality control plan or a sustainable
groundwater management plan.
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
11446 70
DUDEK August 2019
SETTING
The Project site is located within the core of the Fresno State campus and is surrounded by
various academic buildings to the north, east, and south, and a paved parking lot to the west.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The Project site lies entirely within the boundaries of the Fresno State campus. The
Project would not include the construction of barriers such as roadways or other
dividing features that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, no
related impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Less than Significant)
The Project site is located on the Fresno State campus, which is designated Public
Facilities in the City of Fresno General Plan and zoned Public and Institutional (PI) in
the Citywide Development Code (Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15). The purposes
of the City’s public and semi-public zoning districts are to provide areas for a wide
range of public facilities, ensure that development and operation of public facilities
protects and enhances the character and quality of life of surrounding residential
areas, ensure the provision of services and facilities to serve the community, and
implement and provide appropriate regulations. The PI district is for public or quasi-
public facilities, including schools, with accessory retail uses and services, including
food facilities and childcare, permitted.
The Project would be constructed entirely on Fresno State property and therefore
would be under the land use jurisdiction of the CSU Board of Trustees. There are no
local ordinances or policies of the City of Fresno that would apply to projects on the
Fresno State campus, as the City does not have jurisdiction over CSU lands.
Nevertheless, the Project does not propose a change in land use on the site, and is
consistent with the site’s zoning district and land use designation, identified in the City
Zoning Citywide Development Code and General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
new Student Union building is a permitted land use within the PI district. Therefore, as
the Project would not likely result in a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policies or regulation, City General Plan and Citywide
Development Code, the impact would be less than significant.
The Project site, as well as the entire 388-acre main campus, is located within the
airport influence area for the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, specifically within
the traffic pattern zone, as described in the Fresno County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (FCOG 2018). While properties owned by the State of
11446 71
DUDEK August 2019
California are not subject to the ALUCP, a review of the plan in relationship to the
Project was conducted to determine whether any apparent conflicts with the plan
could result in significant environmental impacts. Maximum non-residential intensity
within the traffic pattern zone is restricted to 300 persons per acre. Prohibited uses
include hazards to flight and outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high-intensity
uses. Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms
of interference with the safety of aircraft operations, as well as certain land uses which
may cause the attraction of birds to increase. Airspace review for objects greater than
100 feet tall is required in the traffic pattern zone. As described in Chapter 2, the new
student union building would be a maximum of approximately 70 feet tall. The Project
would not include hazards to flight or other prohibited land uses. With an existing
headcount enrollment of 24,995 students and 2,596 employees, the existing density
per acre on the main campus is approximately 71 persons per acre. Additionally, while
the Project would accommodate events of up to 1,200 people in the multi-purpose
room, these events are already occurring on the campus, and the Project would not
result in a change in the frequency or size of existing events, as described in
Section 2.3.1. Therefore, as the Project would not likely result in a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with the ALUCP, the impact would be less than
significant.
The only land use plan applicable to the Project is the CSU Master Plan. The Project
would require a master plan revision to accommodate the new Student Union
building. With approval of the master plan map revision by the Board of Trustees, the
Project would be consistent with the Master Plan for the campus. Therefore, as the
Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
the Fresno State Master Plan, the impact would be less than significant.
Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to consistency with land use plans would be
less than significant.
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
11446 72
DUDEK August 2019
SETTING
The California Geological Survey is responsible for classifying land into Mineral Resource Zones
(MRZs) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMARA) based on the known
or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The following MRZ categories are used to
classify land:
• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits
are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
• MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are
present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
• MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated
from available data.
• MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other
MRZ.
The mineral lands classification of the project site is MRZ-3 (California Department of
Conservation 1988). No mining operations or mineral resources are known to be present on
or adjacent to the Project site (California Department of Conservation 1999). The only known
mineral resources in the City of Fresno are located along the San Joaquin River corridor
(California Department of Conservation 1988, City of Fresno 2014a).
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)
and
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan? (No Impact)
As described above, the Project site does not contain mineral deposits that are known
to qualify as mineral resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on known
or locally important mineral resources.
11446 73
DUDEK August 2019
3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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 ground borne
vibration or ground borne 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?
SETTING
Fundamentals of Noise
Vibrations, traveling as waves through air from a source, exert a force perceived by the human
ear as sound. Sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) is measured on a logarithmic
scale in decibels (dB) that represent the fluctuation of air pressure above and below
atmospheric pressure. Frequency, or pitch, is a physical characteristic of sound and is expressed
in units of cycles per second or hertz (Hz). The normal frequency range of hearing for most
people extends from about 20 to 20,000 Hz. The human ear is more sensitive to middle and
high frequencies, especially when the noise levels are quieter. As noise levels get louder, the
human ear starts to hear the frequency spectrum more evenly. To accommodate for this
phenomenon, a weighting system to evaluate how loud a noise level is to a human was
developed. The frequency weighting called “A” weighting is typically used for quieter noise
levels which de-emphasizes the low frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to
the response of a human ear. This A-weighted sound level is called the “noise level” and is
referenced in units of dBA.
Hourly average noise levels are usually expressed as dBA L
eq
or the equivalent noise level
over that period of time. It is generally accepted that the average healthy ear can barely
perceive a noise level change of 3 dB (Caltrans 2013) in an outdoor environment. A change of 5
dB is usually readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as twice or half as loud. A
doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of
sound energy (e.g., doubling the average daily number of traffic trips on a road) would result in
a barely perceptible change in sound level.
11446 74
DUDEK August 2019
Ambient environmental noise levels can be characterized by several different descriptors.
Energy Equivalent Level (L
eq
) describes the average or mean noise level over a specified period
of time. L
eq
provides a useful measure of the impact of fluctuating noise levels on sensitive
receptors and is the most common noise metric. Other descriptors of longer-term noise
incorporate a weighting system that accounts for human’s susceptibility to noise irritations at
night. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of cumulative noise exposure
over a 24-hour period, with a 5-dB penalty added to the hourly L
eq
of evening hours (7:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10-dB penalty added to the hourly L
eq
of night hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.). Since CNEL is a 24-hour average noise level, an area that has 65 dBA CNEL could have
sporadic loud noise levels above 65 dBA which average lower over the 24-hour period. The L
dn
or Day-Night Level is a similar metric addressing long-term noise over a 24-hour period with
the same 10 dB penalty during nighttime, but without the penalty during the evening hours.
Additionally, statistical noise levels (L
xx
) are used to describe a sound level that has been
exceeded for a certain percentage of the measurement time. For example, L
10
is the sound level
exceeded for 10% of the measurement time.
The sound produced by mechanical equipment is sometimes reported as sound power (L
w
).
The sound power level of a noise source is the rate at which sound energy is emitted from the
source per unit time. Sound power levels are independent of the environment or distance from
a source unlike the sound pressure level, which is reduced as distance from the source
increases. Similar to the light-intensity produced by a light bulb, sound power is the rate at
which sound energy is emitted.
Ambient Noise
Long-term and short-term noise measurements were taken near the Project site in December
2018 to document existing sound levels. Due to cold weather, the monitors stopped measuring
hourly data before 24 hours of data had been collected. Figure 9 shows the noise measurement
locations. Table 8 presents the results of the long-term noise measurements.
Noise Measurement Locations
New Student Union Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2018
Date: 12/27/2018 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1144601\MAPDOC\DOCUMENTS\ISMND\Figure09_NoiseMeasurementLocations.mxd
0 200100
Feet
Project Boundary
Noise Measurement Location
Long-term
Short-term
FIGURE 9
11446 76
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 8
LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Noise Level
Descriptor
Daytime
7 a.m.–7 p.m.
Evening
7 p.m.–10 p.m.
Night
10 p.m.–7 a.m.
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT1
LT2
LT3
Hourly L
eq
, dB
58-50
53-56
52-68
51
50-52
N/A
N/A
47-51
N/A
Notes: L
eq
= equivalent continuous sound level
As shown in Table 8, hourly L
eq
results range from 47 to 68 dBA. Measurement location LT2
collected approximately 12 hours of consecutive data. These data were used to estimate the
CNEL in the vicinity of the Project site. The resulting CNEL at LT2 is estimated to be
approximately 56 dBA CNEL. At most of the locations, the dominant noise source was traffic
on nearby roads. Other common noise sources for urban areas were also observed, including
aircraft, birds, people walking and talking, leaves rustling in the wind, and lawn work.
Table 9 presents the results of the short-term noise measurements. Each short-term sound
measurement was 10 minutes long. The short-term L
eq
results range from 49 to 57 dBA. At
measurement location ST1, traffic counts were conducted during the sound measurements due
to its location adjacent to a road. During the measurement, 27 cars and 1 bus passed the
measurement location on East Keats Avenue. Measurement locations ST2 and ST3 were not
located adjacent to roads, so no traffic counts were collected with those measurements.
TABLE 9
SHORT-TERM MEASURED NOISE LEVELS (DBA)
Measurement
Number
Location
Description
Time
L
eq
L
eq
Noise Sources
L
max
L
min
L
10
L
50
L
90
ST1
Approximately
9 feet from E Keats
Avenue on the
sidewalk
1:31
p.m.
57 69 46 61 52 47
Traffic, birds, aircraft, distant
conversation, distant
gardening/landscaping, distant
kids playing, distant traffic,
rustling leaves
ST2
Near center of site
in open field
1:47
p.m.
49 58 45 51 48 46
Birds, aircraft, distant
conversation, distant
gardening/landscaping, distant
kids playing, distant traffic,
rustling leaves
ST3
Near western edge
of Project site,
along sidewalk and
parking lot
1:59
p.m.
54 70 44 57 49 46
Birds, aircraft, distant
conversation, distant
gardening/landscaping, distant
kids playing, distant traffic,
rustling leaves
Notes: L
eq
= Equivalent continuous sound level; L
max
= Maximum sound level; L
min
= Minimum sound level; L
10
= Sound level that was
exceeded for 10% of the measurement time; L
50
= Sound level that was exceeded for 50% of the measurement time; L
90
= Sound level that
was exceeded for 90% of the measurement time
11446 77
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant)
As the Project site is located on CSU property, the City of Fresno does not have
jurisdictional or approval authority over the Project. Therefore, the City’s General Plan
and Noise Ordinance and associated standards do not directly apply to the Project.
However, as described in Section 2.3.1, indoor amplified sound would be permitted to
have a base decibel rate of 75 dBA and spikes of 90 dBA, and all events would end at the
time determined by University administration based on the Fresno State Police
Department’s security assessment, or as prescribed by University policies and City of
Fresno ordinances (Medina pers. comm. 2019). Additionally, outdoor events at the
Student Union plaza would not use amplified sound. Fresno State and the CSU System
do not have other applicable standards to use in the evaluation of construction and
operational Project noise level increases. Regardless, permanent and temporary
construction noise are further evaluated below.
Long-Term Operational Noise
As described below, Project-related operational noise would be similar to and
consistent with existing uses within the Project vicinity, and would not be distinct from
the ambient noise environment created by surrounding uses.
While indoor amplified sound may be used during some events in the new building, such
noise would not exceed the noise standards above for amplified sound and would be
attenuated by building walls and windows. As outdoor events at the Student Union plaza
would not use amplified sounds, such sound would not be expected to be a substantial
source of noise.
Exact mechanical system details are not available at this point in the Project design
process. Performance criteria would guide the future design of the mechanical system.
The currently known system details would include rooftop units and exhaust fans
concealed behind a mechanical screen. The chiller would be located on the ground and
also concealed.
Rooftop mechanical equipment noise was modeled as a set of point sources located on
the rooftop. The input sound power data was based on assumed mechanical equipment
with a sound power level of 93 dBA L
w
, based on similar projects. Two pieces of
mechanical equipment were assumed to be operating at the same time with this sound
power level at a rooftop location at least 50 feet within the Project site boundary. At a
distance of 50 feet from these units, the expected sound pressure level would be 64
dBA L
eq
. The closest noise sensitive land uses are located over 400 feet away from
where the units would be placed on the roof. At a distance of 400 feet, the sound
11446 78
DUDEK August 2019
pressure level of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units would
attenuate to 46 dBA L
eq
.
Typical chiller noise levels vary depending on the exact equipment specification, the load
during operation, and the location (relative to walls or other hard surfaces). Noise levels
emitted from a variety of chillers (Trane model RTAC) were reviewed. The range of
levels at a distance of 30 feet varies from 68 to 78 dBA L
eq
for the chillers (Trane 2002).
Based on these sound level ranges, an example chiller that could be used for this Project
was assumed to operate with a sound pressure level of approximately 73 dBA L
eq
at 30
feet. The closest noise sensitive land uses are located 360 feet away from where the
chillers would be placed on the ground. At a distance of 360 feet (assuming the chiller is
located 10 feet within the Project boundary), the sound pressure level would produce
noise levels of approximately 52 dBA L
eq
when operating.
As demonstrated by the existing long-term noise measurements displayed in Table 8
above, daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) hourly measured sound levels are between
50 and 68 dBA L
eq
, while evening and nighttime (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hourly
sound levels range from about 47 to 52 dBA L
eq
. Existing estimated CNEL in the site
vicinity is approximately 56 dBA. Assuming the mechanical equipment operates
continuously, the resulting expected increase in the estimated CNEL would be
approximately 3 dBA at the closest noise-sensitive land use. As described above, changes in
a community noise level of 3 dBA is considered a barely perceivable change. Therefore,
Project mechanical noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.
While mitigation measures are not required to reduce a significant impact, design best
management practice (BMP) NOI-1 would reduce the potential for noise annoyance
from Project mechanical equipment.
BMP NOI-1: For mechanical equipment, screw or scroll chillers should be
avoided or treated with proper noise mitigation treatments due to the tonal
nature of the noise they produce.
Short-Term Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors
to elevated noise levels that may disrupt communication and routine activities. The
magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment,
duration of the construction, distance between the noise source and receiver, and
intervening structures.
Equipment that would be in operation during construction would include rubber-tired
dozers, backhoes, excavators, and compressors. None of the equipment would produce
high levels of impact-type noise (as would be generated by pile driving, for example).
Typically, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low
power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level. The average
11446 79
DUDEK August 2019
sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the
equipment operates and the intensity of the construction activities during that time.
The typical noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of
50 feet are presented in Table 10.
TABLE 10
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment Type
Acoustical Use Factor (%)
Measured L
max
at 50 feet
(dBA)
Backhoe
40
78
Compactor (ground)
20
83
Compressor (air)
40
78
Crane
16
81
Dozer
40
82
Dump Truck
40
76
Excavator
40
81
Flat Bed Truck
40
74
Front End Loader
40
79
Generator
50
81
Grader (spec)
40
85
Man Lift
20
75
Pavement Scarifier
20
90
Paver
50
77
Pickup Truck
40
75
Pneumatic Tools
50
85
Roller
20
80
Tractor (spec)
40
84
Warning Horn
5
83
Welder / Torch
40
74
Source: FTA 2006.
Notes: Acoustical Use Factor is the percentage of time the equipment is assumed to be operating versus idle over the work day.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model
(RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest
noise-sensitive land uses 350 feet from the Project site. The RCNM includes
representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment.
Input variables for the RCNM consist of the receiver/land use types, the equipment type
and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece
of equipment (e.g., percentage of time the equipment is in operation versus idle, over
the workday), and the distances between the construction activity and the noise-
sensitive receivers. No topographical or structural shielding was assumed in the
construction noise modeling. This is a worst-case scenario, as intervening vegetation and
buildings would likely be located between the construction activity and closest
11446 80
DUDEK August 2019
receptors, thereby reducing the noise level at the receivers. The RCNM has default
duty-cycle values for the various pieces of equipment, which were derived from an
extensive study of typical construction activity patterns, and were used for this noise
analysis. Table 11 provides a summary of the assumed construction equipment used for
the different phases of construction.
TABLE 11
CONSTRUCTION PHASE, DURATION, AND EQUIPMENT ESTIMATES
Construction Phase
Equipment Type
Quantity
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1
Demolition
Excavators
3
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4
Grading
Excavators
1
Grading
Graders
1
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1
Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3
Building Construction
Cranes
1
Building Construction
Forklifts
3
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3
Building Construction
Welders
1
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
2
Paving
Pavers
1
Paving
Paving Equipment
2
Paving
Rollers
2
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1
Using the FHWA RCNM construction noise model and construction information (types
and number of construction equipment by phase), the estimated noise levels from
construction were calculated for a representative range of distances, as presented in
Table 12. The nearest receivers to the Project site are the on-campus health center
(350 feet southwest), on-campus student housing (560 feet west), off-campus residences
(650 feet south), and the University High School (700 feet southeast). This analysis of
construction noise at these receivers is intended to represent a worst case when
construction operations are occurring near the site boundary.
11446 81
DUDEK August 2019
As presented in Table 12, the highest noise levels (71 dBA) are predicted to occur
during the paving construction phase at the on-campus health center. The nearest
residential receivers are located at the on-campus student housing, where the highest
construction noise levels would be up to 66 dBA L
eq
during demolition and paving.
TABLE 12
CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING SUMMARY RESULTS
Construction Phase
Calculated Noise Level L
eq
(dBA)
On-Campus
Health Center 350′
On-Campus
Housing 560′
Off-Campus
Housing 650′
University High
School 700′
Site Preparation
70
65
64
63
Grading
69
65 64
63
Demolition
70
66
64
64
Building Construction
67
63 62
61
Paving
71
66
65
64
Architectural Coating
57
53
51
51
Notes: L
eq
= equivalent continuous sound level
As Project construction noise would be temporary over the 15- to 18-month
construction schedule, would be intermittent depending on construction activities, and
would avoid nighttime construction activities, as described in Section 2.4, the Project
would not result a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity. The construction noise impact would be less than significant.
While mitigation measures are not required to reduce a significant impact, construction
BMP NOI-2 through BMP NOI-7 would reduce off-site noise levels resulting from
Project construction.
BMP NOI-2: Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number
of the job superintendent should be clearly posted at all construction entrances
to allow surrounding individuals to contact the job superintendent if necessary.
In the event the University receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions
should be implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting
party.
BMP NOI-3: The Project contractor should, to the extent feasible, schedule
construction activities to avoid final exams and/or other particularly sensitive
learning times.
BMP NOI-4: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
11446 82
DUDEK August 2019
BMP NOI-5: Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging
areas and residences, use of electric air compressors and similar power tools,
rather than diesel equipment, should be used where feasible.
BMP NOI-6: During construction, stationary construction equipment should be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive
receptors, including student residences.
BMP NOI-7: During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas
should be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors, including
student residences.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant)
Once operational, the Project would not have the potential to generate excessive
groundborne vibration. Construction activities, including demolition of existing
structures, grading, excavation, site preparation, utility trenching, and new building
framing and finishing, may generate perceptible vibration during the use of heavy
equipment or impact tools. Vibration during construction would be a temporary
phenomenon. Groundborne vibration information related to construction activities has
been collected by Caltrans (2013). Information from Caltrans indicates that transient
vibrations (such as construction activity) with a peak particle velocity (PPV) of
approximately 0.035 inches per second may be characterized as barely perceptible, and
vibration levels of 0.24 inches per second may be characterized as distinctly perceptible.
The threshold of 0.24 inches per second (distinctly perceptible) is used for this Project
as the significance threshold. The heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as
bulldozers, would have PPVs of approximately 0.089 inches per second or less at a
distance of 25 feet (FTA 2006). Pile driving or blasting, which can cause excessive vibration,
would not be used for construction of the Project. Groundborne vibration is typically
attenuated over short distances. Sensitive land uses are located approximately 350 feet
from the nearest construction area. Vibration levels at the sensitive receptors would be
below the threshold of perceptibility of 0.035 inches per second PPV. As the threshold
would not be exceeded, short-term construction related vibration impacts would be
less than significant.
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? (No Impact)
The closest public airport to the Project site is the Fresno Yosemite International
Airport, located approximately 2 miles to the southeast. The Project site is not located
within any airport noise contours (City of Fresno 2012FCOG 2018). Therefore, no
impact would occur related to excessive exposure to airport noise.
11446 83
DUDEK August 2019
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
SETTING
Fresno State has an approved enrollment capacity of 25,000 FTES. During the 2017-18
academic year, the campus had a headcount enrollment of 25,168 students and 21,533 FTES. As
of Fall 2018, the campus had a headcount enrollment of 24,995 students (FTES data were not
yet available) and 2,596 employees (Fresno State 2018d).
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)
The Project would serve the existing student population and would not require new
employees, as all programs are already existing on the campus. Therefore, the Project
would have no impact on population growth, either directly or indirectly.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The Project site does not contain housing. Therefore, the Project would not displace
housing or people, and no related impact would occur.
11446 84
DUDEK August 2019
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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 or need for new or physical 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?
SETTING
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides fire protection services to the campus. The FFD
has 24 fire stations and responds to fire, emergency medical services, urban search and rescue,
and hazardous materials incidents within the City of Fresno and on the campus. The
department employs approximately 300 uniformed firefighter members (City of Fresno 2018c).
The Fresno State campus is served by the Fresno State Police Department (FSPD) for its law
enforcement needs. FSPD operates all year, 24 hours a day, and includes 27 sworn officers, 16
community service specialists, 1 parking officer, 7 dispatchers, and 5 administrative support staff
members within two operational areas, Patrol Operations and Traffic Operations (Fresno State
2018c).
DISCUSSION
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 and police protection? (No Impact)
The FFD and FSPD currently support the Project site and would continue to provide
fire and police protection services to the Project site. The Project would not result in
population growth within the area (see Section 3.14). Additionally, the Project would
support existing activities and events currently held on the campus and geared toward
the campus population and would not result in a change in the frequency or size of
these existing events. Given the above, the Project would not result in increased
demand for fire or police protection services on the campus. Therefore, the Project
11446 85
DUDEK August 2019
would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection
facilities and no impact would occur.
Schools, parks, and other public facilities? (No Impact)
Because the Project would serve the existing campus population and would not result in
the generation of new students or employees, the Project would not result in
substantial school, park, or other public services impacts, as the Project site would
continue to support existing activities on campus. As the demand for services would not
substantially increase, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically
altered schools, parks, or other public facilities and no impact would occur.
3.16 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities?
SETTING
Fresno State contains several existing on-campus athletic and recreational facilities, which serve
its existing population. These include a student recreation center, an aquatics center, a
gymnasium complex, tennis courts, a football stadium, and baseball and softball diamonds.
11446 86
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
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? (No Impact)
and
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 Project would be constructed entirely on CSU property and would not include or
remove recreational facilities. Given adequate existing and planned recreational facilities
on campus and the fact that the Project would not result in population growth within
the area (see Section 3.14), the Project would not require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not
result in significant use of off-campus parks or recreational facilities, or generate the
need for new or expanded recreational facilities. No impacts to parks and recreational
facilities would result with construction and operation of the Project.
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (for example, sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (for example, farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
SETTING
Shaw Avenue provides regional access to/from the southern end of the campus, including the
Project site, to SR 41 (Yosemite Freeway) to the west, and SR 168 (Sierra Freeway) to the east.
Shaw Avenue is an east-west, six-lane divided roadway that is designated as an arterial in the
City’s Mobility Element. As shown on Figure 2, primary vehicular access to the Project site
11446 87
DUDEK August 2019
would be provided from Keats Avenue, which provides access to Parking Lot 31 adjacent, and
to the west, of the Project site. Keats Avenue is an east-west, two-lane, undivided roadway
within the Fresno State campus with unsignalized intersections at Barton Avenue and Maple
Avenue that provide access to Shaw Avenue.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities? (Less than Significant)
As the Project would not result in an increase in enrollment capacity or employment
growth on campus and would serve the existing campus population, programs, and
events, Project operation would not generate new on-road vehicle trips. Therefore,
Project operation would not result in impacts to transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities. Additionally, no changes to vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle
circulation external to the Project site are proposed with the Project. However, Project
construction would generate temporary traffic to and from the Project site from
construction workers and construction-related trucks. As such, the following traffic
analysis focuses on the temporary, construction-period traffic generated by the Project
and any related effects on roadway facilities.
Project construction would be anticipated to commence in 2020/2021 and last for
approximately 15 to 18 months. Construction hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. However, to be conservative and account for the winter
months with limited daylight, the traffic analysis assumes that construction workers
would be leaving the site during the PM peak period (i.e., 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.).
Project construction would consist of the following phases: Demolition, Site
Preparation, Grading, Paving, and Architectural Coating. Based on construction vehicle
data calculated from CalEEMod, the highest volume of construction traffic would be
generated during the Building Construction phase, which would occur from April 2020
to April 2021. Per CalEEMod, the Building Construction phase would generate
temporary traffic from 34 construction workers and 13 vendor trucks per day. Table 13
presents the temporary trip generation estimates of the peak construction phase.
As shown in Table 13, the peak construction phase (Building Construction) of the
Project would generate approximately 94 daily trips, with 36 trips each in the AM and
PM peak hours. As these trips would be generated by both cars and trucks, a passenger-
car equivalence (PCE) factor was applied to truck trips to account for the greater
impact from truck modes of transport on traffic variables compared to a single car.
With the application of the PCE factor for trucks (i.e., 2.0 PCE for vendor trucks), the
Project would generate a total of 120 PCE daily trips, with 38 PCE trips each in the AM
and PM peak hours, during the peak construction phase.
11446 88
DUDEK August 2019
TABLE 13
PEAK CONSTRUCTION PHASE TRIP GENERATION
Vehicle Type
Daily
Quantity
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Trip Generation
Workers
34 workers
68
34
0
34
0
34
34
Vendor Trucks
13 trucks
26
1
1
2
1
1
2
Total
94
35
1
36
1
35
36
Trip Generation w/PCE
Workers (1.0 PCE)
1
34 workers
68
34
0
34
0
34
34
Vendor Trucks (2.0 PCE)
2
13 trucks
52
2
2
4
2
2
4
Total (w/PCE)
120
36
2
38
2
36
38
PCE – Passenger Car Equivalent
Notes:
1
PCE factor of 1.0 was utilized for worker passenger cars
2
PCE factor of 2.0 was utilized for vendor trucks
As shown on Figure 7, all construction-related traffic would access the site from Shaw
Avenue, via the signalized intersection of Maple Avenue/Shaw Avenue, then via the
unsignalized intersection of Maple Avenue/Keats Avenue. The west leg of Maple
Avenue/Keats Avenue would be temporarily closed during Project construction
(approximately 800 feet of Keats Avenue would be closed between Parking Lot 31 and
Maple Avenue for construction activities and access). Therefore, all construction traffic
would travel to/from Shaw Avenue and access the Project site via the signalized
intersection of Maple Avenue/Shaw Avenue. As described above, during the AM and PM
peak hours, the peak construction phase would add 36 (38 PCE) AM peak hour trips,
and 36 (38 PCE) PM peak hour trips to this intersection. Those trips would then be split
and distributed to the east, towards SR 168, and to the west, towards SR 41.
The signalized intersection of Maple Avenue/Shaw Avenue contains two separate
southbound lanes which are comprised of a shared left through lane and a dedicated
right turn lane, both with up to 450 feet (or up to 20 vehicles per lane) of vehicular
storage. The eastbound left turn lane on Shaw Avenue has 400 feet of storage (for
approximately 18 vehicles) with protected left-turn phasing; while, the westbound right
lane on Shaw Avenue has 150 feet of storage (for approximately 7 vehicles). Given the
existing vehicle capacity of the Maple Avenue/Shaw Avenue intersection, the addition of
the Project’s construction traffic volumes to this intersection during the AM and PM
peak hours would not significantly impact intersection operations at Maple Avenue/Shaw
Avenue, nor at any other surrounding intersections and roadway segments.
A detailed transportation impact assessment is not warranted for the Project, as this
Initial Study does not identify potentially significant transportation impacts, per the CSU
Transportation Impact Study Manual (Fehr & Peers 2012). Additionally, the Project
would not result in the addition of more than 100 peak-hour trips to the roadway
network, which is one of the thresholds for detailed traffic study per the City of Fresno
11446 89
DUDEK August 2019
Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines (City of Fresno Department of Public Works 2006).
Project-related traffic would be comprised of temporary vehicle and truck trips, which
would cease upon completion of Project construction. Given the above, the Project’s
temporary construction traffic impacts related to conflicts with an applicable program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (No Impact)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the
criterion for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. As the Project would not
result in an increase in enrollment or employment on the campus, nor would it result in
an increase in the frequency of existing events currently held on the campus, no
increase in VMT would occur with Project operation. Therefore, the Project would have
no impact regarding conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)? (Less than Significant)
A new loading dock would be constructed as part of the new Student Union building to
allow for delivery vehicle access to the building. Vehicles would access the new loading
dock via a new or existing vehicle access point from the existing parking lot to the west
(Parking Lot 31) of the Project site. Parking Lot 31 would serve the Project. Parking Lot
31 is currently underutilized and would have adequate capacity to serve the Project; no
new parking stalls would be added. Therefore, no hazardous design features would
result from implementation of the Project.
Construction would be performed by qualified contractors. Plans, specifications, and
construction contracts would incorporate stipulations regarding standard CSU
requirements and acceptable construction practices, which includes safety measures,
vehicle operation and maintenance, traffic circulation, and public safety. Therefore, with
the implementation of CSU construction practices throughout the Project’s
construction phase, impacts due to increased hazards (temporary roadway closures) or
incompatible uses (temporary construction activities) would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than Significant)
All areas of the Project site would be accessible to emergency responders, and the
Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable provisions
of the fire code.
Traffic circulation may be temporarily affected during construction as a result of
increased traffic flow from construction vehicles and heavy equipment. Additionally,
portions of Keats Avenue would be closed during construction. A construction site
access plan (see Figure 7) was developed for demolition activities and construction of
11446 90
DUDEK August 2019
the Project, indicating limits of construction disturbance (including the Keats Avenue
street closure), construction staging and laydown areas, and vehicle access routes. Per
the required CSU construction practices, temporary signage would be posted and
detour routes would be identified to facilitate movement of traffic flow, including
emergency vehicles, during the 15 to 18 month construction period. As construction
activities would be temporary in nature and access to the surrounding buildings would
remain open and accessible during construction, impacts associated with emergency
access would be less than significant.
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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:
a) 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
b) 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe?
SETTING
Assembly Bill 52 requires that California lead agencies consult with a California Native
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a
proposed project, if so requested by the tribe. No Native American tribe has contacted Fresno
State or the Trustees of the CSU and requested consultation related to Fresno State properties
or projects.
Assembly Bill 52 also specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significant of a tribal cultural resource (TCR) is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment. Defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources
Code, a TCR is a site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of
cultural value to a California Native American tribe and is either listed in or eligible for listing in
11446 91
DUDEK August 2019
the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or the lead agency, at
its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a TCR.
DISCUSSION
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:
a) 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)? (No Impact)
As described in Section 3.5, the existing structures on the Project site are neither listed
in nor eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, CHL, or local register of historic resources.
Furthermore, the site is within the developed Fresno State campus core. Therefore, the
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR listed
in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, CHL, or a local register and no related
impact would occur.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As described above in Section 3.5, a CHRIS records search and NAHC Sacred Lands
File search were conducted for the Project site (see Appendix C). There are no known
Native American resources within or adjacent to the Project area. Consultation with
tribes culturally affiliated to the Project area, detailed in Appendix C, did not reveal any
concerns with respect to tribal cultural resources. The Project site has previously been
disturbed. Given the context of the Project area within the developed Fresno State
campus, there is a low potential for encountering unrecorded TCRs. In the event that a
TCR is discovered on the Project site, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-3 described
in Section 3.5 would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant.
11446 92
DUDEK August 2019
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SETTING
Fresno State has its own water supply and distribution system. Fresno State presently, and
historically, depends on groundwater as the source of its domestic water supply. The campus
groundwater system consists of six domestic groundwater wells located primarily along the
west and north sides of the main academic core of the campus, one elevated storage tank and
approximately seven miles of water mains that provide service throughout the campus,
including near the Project site. The total pumping capacity of the existing domestic water wells
on campus is 2,782 gallons per minute, or 4 mgd. The campus currently pumps a yearly average
of approximately 0.8 mgd to meet the various water needs of the campus (Land Use Associates
2006). Total pumping capacity was increased in 2015 with an upgrade to Well #5 (Johnson pers.
comm. 2017). Therefore, excess pumping capacity exists in the Fresno State groundwater
system.
Wastewater is directed to the City of Fresno’s wastewater collection and treatment system,
which conveys wastewater to the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(RWRF), located southwest of the City. The Fresno/Clovis RWRF has a permitted capacity of
11446 93
DUDEK August 2019
80 mgd as an annual monthly average flow, and 88 mgd as a maximum monthly average flow
(City of Fresno 2018b); as of December 2018, the facility treats an average of approximately 57
mgd (Harman pers. comm. 2018).
Fresno State’s Waste Disposal and Recycling Contract is currently with Mid Valley Disposal.
Recycle materials are hauled to the Elm Avenue Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) and
Transfer Station for further processing. Refuse (trash) materials are hauled to the Cedar
Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (CARTS) and waste is then directed to the American
Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County. It is estimated that the landfill will be
able to continue operation through August 2031 when it is expected to reach capacity and will
have to be closed (CalRecycle 2018a, City of Fresno 2018a).
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, or wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
As described in Section 2.2.2, the Central Plant on the campus has insufficient capacity
to serve the Project, and the Project would be served by independent and dedicated
HVAC systems, which are analyzed in this initial study as part of the Project. Likewise,
the Project would be connected to existing electrical, natural gas, and
telecommunications systems located near the Project site and these connections are
also analyzed in this initial study as part of the Project. All potentially significant impacts
associated with construction of the Project, including these improvements and
connections, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures
identified in this initial study.
The Project would be served by the existing water and wastewater infrastructure near
the Project site with new service connections provided for the new building. The
Project’s estimated water use would be 2 million gallons per year, which would result in
a net increase of 1.8 million gallons per year on the Project site considering that the
existing Keats building would be demolished. Given that the domestic water wells on
campus have a total pumping capacity of 4 mgd and the campus uses an average of 0.8
mgd, the campus has ample existing water supply capacity to serve the Project. The
Project’s estimated wastewater generation would be 1.8 million gallons per year, which
would represent a net increase of 1.6 million gallons per year on the Project site. As the
Fresno/Clovis RWRF has a treatment capacity of 88 mgd and treats an average of 57
mgd, the facility has sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, as the Project
would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing water supply or
wastewater treatment infrastructure, the impact would be less than significant.
11446 94
DUDEK August 2019
The Project would result in an increase in impervious surface area on the Project site
and an associated increase in stormwater runoff, which would have the potential to
exceed the capacity of existing stormwater facilities. However, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 described in Section 3.10, the Project’s contribution of
stormwater runoff to the stormwater drainage system would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years? (Less than Significant)
As described above in Section 3.19(a), the campus has sufficient excess capacity in its
groundwater pumping system to accommodate the Project and likely other campus
projects that may be contemplated in the near-term future. As Fresno State relies on
groundwater, the use of groundwater by other entities using the Kings Subbasin could
potentially affect the long-term reliability of groundwater sources used by Fresno State.
However, as noted in Section 3.10, groundwater level declines in the Kings Subbasin
have decreased substantially since 2004, as water conservation, groundwater recharge,
and use of reclaimed water from surface water treatment facilities has increased
substantially. The 2015 UWMP indicates that the City of Fresno would have a reliable
water supply through 2040 during normal year supply and demand scenarios; single dry
year supply and demand scenarios; and multiple dry year supply and demand scenarios.
This provides an indication of the reliability of Fresno State’s groundwater resources. In
addition, in accordance with the SGMA, the City and other regional stakeholders have
formed a GSA to ensure the continued beneficial use of groundwater supplies.
Therefore, as it is anticipated that the Project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
various conditions, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? (Less than Significant)
As stated above in Section 3.19(a), although the Project would generate more
wastewater than under existing conditions, the Fresno/Clovis RWRF has available
capacity and services to accommodate the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a
less-than-significant impact related to wastewater treatment capacity.
11446 95
DUDEK August 2019
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than Significant)
Based on estimated solid waste generation rates provided by CalRecycle (CalRecycle
2018b), the Project could generate an estimated 560 pounds per day (102 tons per year)
of solid waste.
6
Based on these same rates, the estimated existing solid waste generation
on the Project site is approximately 52 pounds per day (9.5 tons per year). This would
result in a net increase in solid waste generation over existing conditions of
approximately 508 pounds per day (93 tons per year).
The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,200 tons per
day. As of 2005 (the latest available data on remaining landfill capacity), the American
Avenue Landfill had a remaining capacity of over 29.3 million cubic yards, which was
nearly 90 percent of its maximum permitted capacity of 32.7 million cubic yards
(CalRecycle 2018a). While the Project would result in an increase in solid waste
generation over existing conditions, the American Avenue Landfill is expected to have
capacity until 2031. The amount of solid waste generated by the Project would
constitute a negligible portion of the remaining available landfill capacity. Therefore, the
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on landfill capacity.
d) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)
The Project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste and no
impact would occur.
3.20 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
Incorporated
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?
6
Assumes 0.007 pounds per square foot per day for public/institutional generation sources.
11446 96
DUDEK August 2019
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
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
SETTING
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas of significant
fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, pursuant to Public
Resources Code 4201-4204 and Government Code 51175-51189. These areas are referred to
as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) and are identified for areas where the state has financial
responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., state responsibility areas, or SRAs), and areas
where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., local
responsibility areas, or LRAs). There are three FHSZ mapped for SRAs (moderate, high, and
very high), while only lands zoned as very high are identified in LRAs (CAL FIRE 2007). The
Project site is located within a LRA and is not located near a SRA or a very high FHSZ (CAL
FIRE 2012).
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
and
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact)
and
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines,
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact)
11446 97
DUDEK August 2019
and
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes? (No Impact)
As the Project site is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs,
no impact would occur related to wildfire hazards, including emergency
response/evacuation, pollutants and uncontrolled wildfire spread, associated
infrastructure, or post-fire effects.
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) 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 the
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
11446 98
DUDEK August 2019
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The Project would not substantially reduce habitat of fish or wildlife species or other
special-status species, as the Fresno State campus constitutes a built environment. There
are no sensitive habitats or wetlands located on the Project site, and no special-status
species are known to or have the potential to occupy the site. However, other
protected birds could potentially nest in trees on the Project site and could be
disturbed during construction activities or tree removal; implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, which requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys and other
measures if demolition or construction occurs during the typical avian nesting season
(see Section 3.4), would ensure that impacts to nesting protected birds would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Project would not result in impacts to built historic resources, as none are located
on or near the Project site. Although it is not anticipated that new archaeological
resources or TCRs would be encountered, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2
would be implemented with the Project to ensure that impacts related to inadvertent
discovery of cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)? (Less than Significant)
The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. As indicated in
Section 3.3, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable air quality impact
as annual construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the
SJVAPCD significance thresholds, the Project would not result in an increase in long-
term operational emissions over existing conditions, and the Project would not conflict
with the SJVAPCD Ozone Attainment Plans, or the PM
10
or PM
2.5
Attainment Plan,
which address the cumulative emissions in the SJVAB. As indicated in Section 0, the
Project would not result in significant impacts related to GHG emissions and, therefore,
the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global
climate change. Additionally, the Project would not generate an increase in vehicle trips
or vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to congestion on area roadways. Given the foregoing, the Project’s
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
11446 99
DUDEK August 2019
c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts that are significant and
unavoidable or cumulatively considerable, including those related to hazardous
materials, emergency response, proximity to airport activities, or transportation
hazards. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein would reduce
all potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Project
would not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
11446 100
DUDEK August 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11446 101
DUDEK August 2019
4 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. Fact Sheet: California’s
Fire Hazard Severity Zones. May 2007. Accessed January 4, 2019 at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/downloads/FHSZ_fact_sheet.pdf.
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2012. “Fresno County
FHSZ Map.” Accessed January 4, 2019 at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_fresno.
California Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger
and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. Accessed December 5, 2018 at
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-
03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.
California Department of Conservation. 1988. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land
Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region. Special
Report 158. Accessed November 27, 2018 at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_158/SR_158_Text.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 1999. Division of Mines and Geology. Update of
Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region,
California. Open-File Report 99-02. Accessed November 27, 2018 at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_99-02/OFR_99-02_Text.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. Division of Land Resource Protection,
Conservation Program Support. Fresno County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, Sheet 2 of 2.
Accessed November 21, 2018 at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Fresno_e_15_16_WA.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2018. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. Rural Land Mapping Edition: Fresno County Important
Farmland 2016, Sheet 2 of 2. Map published September 2018. Accessed November 21,
2018 at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/fre16_e.pdf.
CalRecycle. 2018a. Solid Waste Information System. “SWIS Facility Detail: American Avenue
Disposal Site (10-AA-0009).” Accessed November 28, 2018 at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/10-AA-0009.
11446 102
DUDEK August 2019
CalRecycle. 2018b. Waste Characterization. “Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.”
Accessed December 21, 2018 at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol: A Guide for Measuring, Modeling, and Abating Highway
Operation and Construction Noise Impacts. September 2013. Accessed January 8, 2019 at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. “Scenic Highways.” Updated August
2, 2018. Accessed November 21, 2018 http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-
highways/index.html.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA and Climate
Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. Accessed December 5, 2018 at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010/CAPCOA-1000-
2008-010.PDF.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping
Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. Accessed December 5, 2018 at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scopin
g_plan.pdf.
CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. Accessed
December 5, 2018 at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2013. “Preventing Work-Related
Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).” CDPH, Fact Sheet: Hazard Evaluation System &
Information Service. June 2013. Accessed August 22, 2019 at
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/CDPH%20Documen
t%20Library/CocciFact.pdf.
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces: Note 36. 4 pp.
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2018. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.
Accessed November 21, 2018 at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/.
11446 103
DUDEK August 2019
City of Fresno. 2012. Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted
August 30, 2012. Accessed December 11, 2018 at https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Fresno-Yosemite-International-Airport-Land-Use-
Compatibility-Plan.pdf.
City of Fresno. 2014a. Master Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code
Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. Prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions.
December 5, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2018 at https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2017/01/FullMEIR3918pages.pdf.
City of Fresno. 2014b. Fresno General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional
Planners. Adopted December 18, 2014. Accessed November 21, 2018 at
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/consolidatedGP.pdf.
City of Fresno. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Provost & Pritchard
Consulting Group. June 2016. Accessed November 30, 2018 at
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/wp-
content/uploads/sites/16/2016/11/CityofFresno2015UWMP_adopted.pdf.
City of Fresno. 2018a. Department of Public Utilities. Facilities & Infrastructure. “American
Avenue Landfill.” Accessed November 28, 2018 at
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/american-avenue-landfill/.
City of Fresno. 2018b. Department of Public Utilities. Facilities & Infrastructure. “Fresno-Clovis
Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF).” Accessed November 28, 2018 at
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/fresno-clovis-regional-
wastewater-reclamation-facility-rwrf/.
City of Fresno. 2018c. Fire Department. “Fire Suppression.” Accessed November 27, 2018.
https://www.fresno.gov/fire/fire-suppression/.
City of Fresno Department of Public Works. 2006. City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report
Guidelines. October 18, 2006. Accessed December 11, 2018 at
https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp-
content/uploads/sites/17/2016/09/TrafficImpactStudyGuidelinesCityofFresnoOctober201
.pdf.
County of Fresno. 2017. “Communicable Disease Monthly Report.” County of Fresno,
Department of Public Health. March 2017. Accessed August 22, 2019 at
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=4829.
11446 104
DUDEK August 2019
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory
Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2006. EnviroStor. “Approval of Phase I
Environmental Assessment, Sierra Unified School District, Proposed University High
School, Keats/Maple Avenues, Fresno, Fresno County (Site Code 104519).” Letter dated
April 3, 2006 from Mark Malinowski, Chief, Schools Property Evaluation and Cleanup
Division, DTSC, to Dr. Don A. Witzansky, Superintendent, Sierra Unified School
District. Accessed November 26, 2018 at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/9690290153/Phase%20
1%20Apvl%20-%20University%20HS.pdf.
Dundas, R., Harmsen, G., Frederika J., and Wakabayishi, J. 2009. Mammuthus and Camelops from
Pleistocene Strata along the Caltrans State Route 180 West Project, Fresno, California.
Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 109.
FCOG (Fresno Council of Governments). 2015. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy. April. Accessed December 4, 2018 at
https://www.fresnocog.org/project/regional-transportation-plan-rtp/.
FCOG (Fresno Council of Governments). 2017a. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy 2018-2042. July 2017. Accessed December 4, 2018 at
https://www.fresnocog.org/project/regional-transportation-plan-rtp/.
FCOG (Fresno Council of Governments). 2017b. Fresno County Congestion Management Process
Update. September 2017. Accessed December 11, 2018 at
https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/CMP-report-Sept-
2017_final.pdf.
FCOG (Fresno Council of Governments). 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Prepared for Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. Accessed March 11, 2018
at https://www.fresnocog.org/project/airport-land-use-commission-fresno-county/.
Fehr & Peers. 2012. California State University Transportation Impact Study Manual. November
2012.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
11446 105
DUDEK August 2019
FMFCD et al. (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; County of Fresno; City of Clovis;
California State University, Fresno; City of Fresno). 2013. Fresno-Clovis Storm Water
Quality Management Program. November 2013. Accessed November 30, 2018 at
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Stormwater-Quality-
Management-Plan-2013.pdf.
Fresno State (California State University, Fresno). 2018a. “Emergency Procedures &
Preparation.” Last updated September 12, 2018. Accessed November 29, 2018 at
https://www.fresnostate.edu/adminserv/emergency/prepare/campus-evac/.
Fresno State (California State University, Fresno). 2018b. “Energy Saving Programs.” Accessed
January 1, 2019 at
http://www.fresnostate.edu/adminserv/facilitiesmanagement/services/energy/energysaving
.html.
Fresno State (California State University, Fresno). 2018c. “Fresno State Police Department:
About Us.” Last updated September 12, 2018. Accessed November 27, 2018 at
http://www.fresnostate.edu/adminserv/police/about/index.html.
Fresno State (California State University, Fresno). 2018d. Office of Institutional Effectiveness.
Data: “Enrollment & Student Demographics” and “Employees.” Last updated
November 6, 2018. Accessed November 27, 2018 at
http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/data/.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May
2006. Accessed January 8, 2019 at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manu
al.pdf.
Harman, JT. 2018. Personal communication between Catherine Wade (Dudek) and JT Harman
(Fresno/Clovis RWRF). December 11, 2018.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer.
Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed December 4, 2018 at
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A Catalog of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California. Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports 7:1-174. Unpublished
revision: 18 May 2012.
11446 106
DUDEK August 2019
Johnson, Paul. 2017. Personal communication between Sara Mitchel (Fresno State) and Paul
Johnson (Fresno State). October 31, 2017.
Land Use Associates. 2006. California State University, Fresno, Campus Pointe Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2005121164). September 2006.
Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L., 1965, Geologic map of California: Fresno sheet: California
Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000.
McLeod, S.A., 2018. Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for Paleontological Resources
for the Proposed Fresno State New Student Union Project, Dudek Project #11446, in
the City of Fresno, Los Angeles County, Project Area. Unpublished Records Search
Results Letter from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles,
California.
Medina, Tinnah. 2019. Personal communication between Catherine Wade (Dudek) Tinnah
Medina (Fresno State). January 28, 2019.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. February 2015.
Recharge Fresno. 2018. “Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility.” Accessed December 11,
2018 at http://www.rechargefresno.com/seswtf/.
RMA Geoscience. 2018. Geotechnical Investigation Report: New Student Union, California State
University, Fresno. November 20, 2018.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use
Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Accessed
December 4, 2018 at https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-
09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2009b. Addressing GHG Emission
Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.
Accessed December 4, 2018 at https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-
09/2%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-
%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
11446 107
DUDEK August 2019
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2009c. Final Staff Report –
Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. December
17. Accessed December 4, 2018 at http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-
09/1%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20CEQA%20GHG%20Staff%20Report%20-
%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2012. “Asbestos Requirements for
Demolitions and Renovations.” Accessed November 29, 2018 at
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Accessed December 4, 2018 at
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. 11 p. Available;
http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/68/68c554bb-86f1-442f-a0dc-25299762d36c.pdf.
Trane. 2002. Engineering Bulletin: Sound Data and Application Guide for the New and Quieter Air-
Cooled Series R
TM
Chiller – Model RTAC.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1971. Soil Conservation Service in
cooperation with California Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey: Eastern Fresno
Area, California. Issued October 1971. Accessed November 21, 2018 at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA654/0/fresno.pdf.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2018. Natural Resource Conservation
Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed November 21, 2018 at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
11446 108
DUDEK August 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11446 109
DUDEK August 2019
5 FINDINGS
The Board of Trustees of the California State University (Board of Trustees) finds that the
proposed California State University, Fresno (Fresno State) New Student Union Project
(Project) would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, based on the Initial
Study Environmental Checklist and the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (see Chapter 3).
Some potentially significant effects have been identified, and mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Project to ensure that these effects remain at less-than-significant levels.
A mitigated negative declaration is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The conclusion that there would be not
significant effects is supported by the following findings.
1) Aesthetics. Project implementation would not significantly affect aesthetic resources
(see Section 3.1, Aesthetics).
2) Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Project implementation would not
significantly affect agricultural resources (see Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry
Resources).
3) Air Quality. Project implementation would not significantly affect air quality (see
Section 3.3, Air Quality).
4) Biological Resources. A mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project
to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance (see
Section 3.4, Biological Resources).
5) Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to
reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance (see
Section 3.5, Cultural Resources).
6) Energy. Project implementation would not significantly affect energy consumption (see
Section 3.6, Energy).
7) Geology and Soils. Project implementation would not significantly affect geology and
soils (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils).
8) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Project implementation would not significantly affect
global climate change due to GHG emissions (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions).
9) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Project implementation would not result in
significant effects related to hazards and hazardous materials (see Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials).
10) Hydrology and Water Quality. Project implementation would not significantly affect
hydrology and water quality (See Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality).
11446 110
DUDEK August 2019
11) Land Use and Planning. The Project would be compatible with existing and planned
land uses in the Project vicinity and, with the approval of the major master plan revision
as part of the Project, would not conflict with the applicable land use plan for the
campus (see Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning).
12) Mineral Resources. Project implementation would not affect mineral resources (see
Section 3.12, Mineral Resources).
13) Noise. Project implementation would not significantly increase ambient noise (see
Section 3.13, Noise).
14) Population and Housing. Project implementation would not significantly increase
population or displace people or housing (see Section 3.14, Population and Housing).
15) Public Services. The Project would not affect public services (see Section 3.15, Public
Services).
16) Recreation. The Project would not result in an increase in the use of parks or
recreational facilities and would not require construction or expansion of parks or
recreation facilities (see Section 3.16, Recreation).
17) Transportation and Traffic. Project implementation would not significantly affect
area circulation or roadways (see Section 3.17, Transportation and Traffic).
18) Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project would not affect TCRs (see Section 3.18,
Tribal Cultural Resources).
19) Utilities and Service Systems. Project implementation would not significantly affect
utilities and service systems (see Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems).
20) Wildfire. Project implementation would not affect wildland fire risk or hazards (see
Section 3.20, Wildfire).
21) Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Project would have limited potential to
degrade the quality of the environment and would not result in the number of a
threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive plant or wildlife species dropping
below population-sustaining levels, nor would the Project eliminate an important
cultural resource. Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Finally, no
feature of the Project would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly. As indicated in items 4 and 5 above, mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the Project to reduce potential impacts to below a level of
significance (see Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance).
11446 111
DUDEK August 2019
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Steve Lohr
Chief, Land Use Planning and Environmental Review
FRESNO STATE
Deborah Adishian-Astone
Vice President for Finance and Administration
Tinnah Medina
Associate Vice President for Facilities Management
Sara Mitchel
Director of Facilities Planning, Design, and Construction
DUDEK
Ann Sansevero, AICP
Principal
Matthew Morales
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Specialist
Catherine Wade, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Samantha Murray
Built Environment Lead
Christopher Barnobi
Noise Specialist
Dennis Pascua
Transportation Specialist
William Burns, MSc., RPA
Archaeologist
Perry Russell
Hydrology/Water Quality Specialist
Nicole Frank, MSHP
Architectural Historian
Fallin Steffen
Architectural Historian
Amanda Meroux, EIT
Transportation Specialist
Michael Williams
Paleontologist
11446 112
DUDEK August 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK